Crl.Rev.No.681 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.681 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.10.2009 Dharam Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Varun Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... JORA SINGH, J. Dharam Singh filed this revision to impugn the judgment dated 29.10.2007. Vide this judgment, respondents were ordered to be released on probation by dismissing the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 18.10.2001 and order of sentence dated 22.10.2001 passed by CJM, Rewari. FIR No.192 dated 19.9.1996 under Sections 323/324/325/34 IPC, PS Jatusana, was registered against Abhey Singh and others on the allegation that the complainant is issueless. His wife has already died. Dharam Singh was adopted about 25 years back. His nephew has obtained false sale deed regarding land measuring 2-1/2 killa. No payment was paid to him. Dharam Singh filed a civil suit. Abhey Singh etc. were ploughing the fields with the help of tractor. Then complainant along with Dharam Singh had gone there to stop the opposite party from ploughing the land. Abhy Singh, Om Parkash and Brahm Parkash, fully armed, gave blows with respective weapons to the complainant. In the meantime, Sarita and Chamkaur came to the spot. Abhey Singh also brought Maya Devi, Ramrati, Crl.Rev.No.681 of 2008 2 Sunil and Phool Wati. They had given injuries to Chhan Kaur and Sarita. After completion of investigation, challan was presented. Evidence was led by the prosecution. After that, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused had denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Ultimately, vide judgment/order dated 18.10.2001/22.10.2001, the accused were convicted under Sections 324/325/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months under Section 325 IPC, under Sections 324 and 323 IPC, the accused were sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. Against the judgment of conviction by CJM, Rewari, appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court, but the First Appellate Court by upholding the conviction, directed the accused to be released on probation. Each accused was directed to pay Rs.8000/- as compensation. Out of the amount collected, Rs.5000/- each was ordered to be paid to Chhan Kaur and Sarita. Rs.14000/- was ordered to be paid to injured Dharam Singh. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 29.10.2007, revision was preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgment of conviction by the CJM and of the First Appellate Court are to the effect that respondents had committed offence. However, vide judgment dated 29.10.2007, instead of directing the accused to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, they were directed to pay Rs.8000/- each as compensation. Out of the entire amount collected from the accused, Chhan Crl.Rev.No.681 of 2008 3 Kaur and Sarita were directed to get Rs.5000/- each. Similarly, Rs.14,000/- was ordered to be paid to Dharam Singh as compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that judgment of the CJM is genuine one but the First Appellate Court without any reason ordered the accused-respondents to be released on probation. I have gone through the evidence on the file and am not in a position to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Occurrence is dated 19.9.1996. Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court held that the respondents had committed offences punishable under Sections 325/324/323/34 IPC, but the first Appellate Court instead of directing the respondents to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, ordered to release the respondents on probation on furnishing probation bonds. First Appellate Court opined that the respondents are attending the trial Court since 1996. Two of the accused are ladies. Civil Suit filed by Dharam Singh to challenge the sale deed (Ex.DW1/A) was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.11.1995. Appeal preferred by Dharam Singh was also dismissed. Complainant Bhuru Ram had also moved an application for compounding of the offences. The application remained pending and could not be disposed of due to the death of the complainant. In view of all discussed above, no question of interference with the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2007. The revision being without merit is dismissed. 26.10.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE