In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.969 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:28.4.2009 Dalbara Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 4.4.2006 of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri has been dismissed. The petitioners and the complainant-Rulda Singh are brothers. The complainant-Rulda Singh on 31.8.2000 at about 7.30 a.m. was coming on foot from his land to his house. His wife Smt. Baljit Kaur and son Balli Singh were following him. When the complainant reached near the land of Amarjit Singh then Bhan Singh (petitioner No.2) and Dalbara Singh (petitioner No.1) came on a scooter from the other side and waylaid the complainant. Bhan Singh (petitioner No.2) was holding a wooden batten. He raised a `Lalkara' saying that the complainant be given the taste of asking for an affidavit. At this Dalbara Singh (petitioner No.1) took out a Cr. Revision No.969 of 2009 [2] crowbar lying on the scooter and gave the blow of the same towards the head of Rulda Singh. Rulda Singh raised his left arm to ward-off the blow and it hit him on the left arm. Bhan Singh (petitioner No.2) gave a blow with his batten which hit Rulda Singh on his left shoulder. Rulda Singh tried to run back out of fear but in the meantime Bhan Singh (petitioner No.2) gave another blow with the batten which hit him on the calf of the leg. Smt. Baljit Kaur, the wife of Rulda Singh and Balli Singh son of Rulda Singh raised an alarm. The assailants then fled away on their scooter along with their weapons. Rulda Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Dhuri where he was medically examined. On the same day, a wireless message was received from Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dhuri with regard to admission of Rulda Singh in Civil Hospital, Dhuri. Jora Singh, ASI visited the Civil Hospital and the doctor declared him not fit to make a statement as Rulda Singh was under the effect of sedation. On 1.9.2000, the doctor declared Rulda Singh fit to make statement. Accordingly, his statement was recorded. The investigation was conducted by ASI Jora Singh and after obtaining medical opinion, charge-report (challan) for the offences under Sections 326 and 325 IPC was filed. Dalbara Singh after making a disclosure statement got recovered a crowbar that he had used in the occurrence. Bhan Singh also on his disclosure statement got recovered the wooden batten that he was carrying at the time of occurrence. After completion of investigation, charge-report (challan) was filed. The petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 326, 325 and 325/34 IPC. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as Cr. Revision No.969 of 2009 [3] ten witnesses, besides, tendered documents in evidence. The statements of the petitioners in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the incriminating evidence was put to them. In defence they examined Harjit Singh (DW-1). The learned trial Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 325 and 325/34 IPC. However, they were acquitted for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for each of the offence under Section 325 and 325/34 IPC. Besides, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offence and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioners aggrieved against the same preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 6.4.2009. The question raised by the appellants for the grant of benefit of probation was considered. However, it was observed that there being no provocation to the accused in the matter of causing grievous injury on the person of the complainant it would not be conducive and in the overall interest of the parties as also the society to which they belong because a person who has gone beyond proportion in settling the dispute should not be given the benefit. Accordingly, it was found not to be a fit case for the grant of probation. The petitioners aggrieved against the same have preferred the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the case for some time has submitted that the petitioners and the complainant are brothers, besides, the petitioners have not been convicted in any other case, Cr. Revision No.969 of 2009 [4] therefore, they be given the benefit of probation. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, it is not a case for grant of benefit of probation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the complainant are real brothers. Dispute between them was that after the death of their father the brothers had assessed the value of the electric motor as Rs.90,000/-. The complainant had alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to his brothers (petitioners) and retained the electric motor connection. Therefore, he asked them to give an affidavit pertaining to the sale of their share in the electric motor connection. It is on account of the reason that he had asked for an affidavit that the petitioners caused injuries to the complainant. The cause of the dispute between the brothers is, therefore, apparently trivial in nature. Both the brothers are residing in the same village and in case the petitioners undergo the sentence of two years there would always be some rancour with them that their brother had got them convicted and sent to jail. Besides, in case they are ordered to be released on probation, the tempers would cool with the passage of time and during the period of probation at least the petitioners would maintain peace and good behavior by which time they would be able to get over the fact that they had caused injuries and had also been sentenced. In terms of the affidavit filed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Sangrur in Court today, the petitioners have undergone imprisonment of one month and 13 days as on 22.4.2009. They have not been convicted in any other case nor any case is pending against them. Therefore, the Cr. Revision No.969 of 2009 [5] petitioners are the first offenders and the dispute is between the brothers. In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met in case the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount with an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. The amount of fine, which it is stated, has been deposited by the petitioners shall be converted towards costs of the proceedings. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of while maintaining the order of conviction, the sentence awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur is set aside and the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount undertaking to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so and during the said period of one year to maintain peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioners shall also file an undertaking that they shall not quarrel with their brother during the aforesaid period. The amount of fine which has been deposited shall be converted towards the costs of the proceedings. With the modification of sentence, the criminal revision petition is disposed of. April 28, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*