Crl. Revision No. 1029 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1029 of 2010 Date of Decision : 07.12.2011 Karnail Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Kuldeep Kaur, Amicus curiae. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Perusal of the record would reveal that after filing of the present revision petition none was present on 01.07.2010, 08.09.2010 and 20.12.2010 and even today none is present on behalf of the revisionist. In view of this Ms. Kuldeep Kaur, Advocate, is appointed amicus curiae. Copy of the grounds of revision has been supplied to her. I have heard Ms. Kuldeep Kaur, learned amicus curiae as well as Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General Haryana for the State and have gone through the records. Present revision petition is filed challenging order dated 28.02.2007, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, whereby accused were found guilty and ultimately sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `500/- each. In default of payment of Crl. Revision No. 1029 of 2010 2 fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days for an offence under Section 326/149 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay `300/- each under Section 324/149 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of `200 each under Sections 323/149 IPC. Feeling aggrieved from the order, passed by the learned trial court, appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, which was decided vide judgment dated 22.12.2009. Learned Sessions Judge found no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial court, therefore, confirmed the conviction order passed by the trial court. However, Appellate Court considered the nature and gravity of the offences and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and has observed that no useful purpose would be served by putting the accused-appellants behind the bars. Accused-appellants were directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing their personal bonds in the sum of `10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each for this period with undertaking there by they would keep peace during this period and shall be of good behaviour and shall undergo the sentence as and when called upon by the trial court. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that complainant Sahab Singh lodged a report with the police to the effect that he is having two brothers, namely, Parkash and Jarnail Singh. His paternal uncle (father’s elder brother) Chanan Singh had sixteen acres of land in village Khushal Majra. Out of this land four acres of land were being cultivated by him (complainant) and his father, while remaining twelve acres of land were being cultivated by his uncle Saroop Singh. Civil litigation is going on between the parties in the Court. On 26.04.2000 at about 4.30/5.00 A.M. Crl. Revision No. 1029 of 2010 3 accused Sawaran Singh, having gandasi in his hand, accused Sunder Singh (since deceased) having a drant in his hand, accused Karnail Singh armed with gandasi and accused Inder Singh having a lathi in his hand reached the above said land and asked the complainant party to leave that land as they had won the Court case and after saying so Karnail Singh gave gandasi blow on the forehead of the complainant-Sahab Singh, while Inder Singh gave two lathi blows on the person of Sawaran Singh. Sunder Singh (since deceased) also gave 4/5 blows on the person of Jeet Singh. Accused party also gave kicks, slaps and fists blows on the person of the complainant party. On raising hue and cry all the accused persons fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. All the injured persons were taken to the hospital where they were medico legally examined. After registration of the case, statements of the witnesses were recorded, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and after investigation challan was presented against the accused persons. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as six witnesses and closed the evidence. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded their false implication. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence, available on the record, convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 323,324,326 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment the accused-petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners released them on probation for one year. Still aggrieved against the said order, the accused-revisionists preferred the present revision petition. After going through the records I find Crl. Revision No. 1029 of 2010 4 that both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and the prosecution witnesses have supported the entire prosecution story. Their statements are also corroborated by the medical evidence. Although, the petitioners-accused have pleaded their false implication, but there is nothing on record to suggest that they have been falsely implicated in this case, particularly when the complainant party had suffered grievous injuries. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgment passed by both the courts below. The learned lower Appellate Court after taking a lenient view has released the present petitioners on probation of good conduct for one year. There is nothing to be set right with the impugned judgment passed by the courts below. I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) December 7, 2011 Judge Anand