Crl. Revision No.838 of 2010 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No.838 of 2010 Date of decision. 01.04.2010 1. Jeet Ram s/o Bihari Lal s/o Telu Ram, r/o village Ratewal, P.S. Balachaur, District Nawanshahr. 2. Rakesh Kumar s/o Kewal Krishan s/o Bihari Lal, r/o village Ratewal, P.S. Balachaur, District Nawanshahr. ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sushil Saini,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.03.2010, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide which it partly accepted the appeal by acquitting the appellants, for the offence, punishable under Section 355 read with Section 34 IPC and partly dismissed the same against the judgment of Crl. Revision No.838 of 2010 --2-- conviction, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, vide which it convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, and 325/34 IPC and awarded them sentence for various terms. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 4.4.2001 at about 6.45 PM Makhan Singh was going from his shop towards his newly constructed kothi and when reached near the shop of Jeet Ram son of Bihari Lal, he found that Jeet Ram and his nephew Rakesh Kumar were digging the foundation in the passage, which led to his kothi, to which he objected, upon which, Rakesh Kumar told the complainant that he will uproot his beard and hand over the same to him. Jeet Ram caught hold the beard of the complainant and Rakesh Kumar, accused, gave fist blow at the mouth of the complainant, as a result whereof, his two teeth of lower jaw were dis-located. His turban was also thrown away. It was further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Tajinder Singh and Sohan Lal. Makhan Singh, complainant, was admitted in the hospital. His statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded, on the basis whereof, FIR was registered. He was also medicolegally examined. 3. The motive behind the occurrence was that Jeet Ram wanted to encroach upon the passage. A civil suit was also pending between the parties, but the accused were Crl. Revision No.838 of 2010 --3-- adamant in encroaching upon the passage 3-A. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented. 4. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 323, 325 and 295-A IPC, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Anil Khosla, Medical Officer, (PW-1), Makhan Singh, complainant, (PW-2), who deposed in terms of the prosecution version, Tajinder Singh, (PW-3), Dr. Hargopal Lal, Civil Hospital, Balachaur, (PW-4), and Kashmir Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-5). Thereafter the prosecution closed its evidence. 6. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. 6-A. In the defence, the accused, examined Joginder Pal, DW-1 and Dr. Anil Khosla, DW-2 and closed the same. Crl. Revision No.838 of 2010 --4-- 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties,and, on going through the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred, by the appellants, which was partly accepted and partly dismissed in the manner referred to above. 9. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision- petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioners. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and documents, on record, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, did not assail the conviction, recorded by the Courts below. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same. The trial Court, on correct reading and due appreciation of the evidence of Dr. Anil Khosla, Medical Officer, (PW-1), Makhan Singh, complainant, (PW-2), who deposed in terms of the prosecution version, Tajinder Singh, (PW-3), Dr. Hargopal Lal, Civil Hospital, Balachaur, (PW-4), and Kashmir Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-5), were right in coming to the conclusion that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy and sufficient to record conviction. These witnesses, were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could Crl. Revision No.838 of 2010 --5-- be brought out, during the course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit their evidence. The findings, recorded by the Courts below, are neither perverse nor illegal. Even otherwise this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same were based on complete mis-reading of evidence or mis-appreciation thereof, or non- consideration of the material piece of evidence. This situation does not prevail in this case. The Courts below were, thus, right in recording conviction and the same is liable to be upheld. 12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, however, submitted that the revision-petitioners are the first offenders. He has further submitted that the revision-petitioners had not committed any crime earlier. He has further submitted that the trial Court, without recording any special reasons, declined to release the petitioners, on probation of good conduct. He has further submitted that the revision petitioners, may be released on probation of good conduct. The submission of the counsel for the revision-petitioners in this regard, appears to be correct. There is nothing, on the record, to indicate that the petitioners, are previous convicts. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the antecedents of the petitioners Crl. Revision No.838 of 2010 --6-- and the nature of offences, committed by them, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which they should be released on probation of good conduct. The order of sentence is, thus, liable to be set aside. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision- petition, is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction is maintained. The order of sentence is set aside. The petitioners are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct, for a period of two years each, on their furnishing probation bonds, in the sum of Rs.5000/- each, with one surety in the like amount each, to appear and receive sentence, as and when called upon, during this period, undertaking not commit such offences. The petitioners shall also pay costs of the proceedings to the tune of Rs.5,000/- each. In case, the costs of proceedings, are paid, half of the amount shall be disbursed, to the victim, against valid receipt. 14. The probation bonds shall be furnished and costs of proceedings shall be paid, by the petitioners, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, within a period of 2 months. In case, the petitioners fail to furnish the probation bonds, and deposit the costs of proceedings, within the stipulated period, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall be at liberty to proceed, in accordance with the provisions of law, for Crl. Revision No.838 of 2010 --7-- compliance of the judgment. April 01, 2010 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE