IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2132 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 20, 2011 Hira Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS Tara Chand and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Crl. Revision Nos.2132 of 2010 and 3335 of 2010. Facts have been taken from Crl. Revision No.2132 of 2010 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were prosecuted for offences under Sections 323/324/325/34 IPC. They were acquitted of a charge under Section 325 IPC by the trial Court, but however were convicted for offences under Sections 323/324 IPC. The complainant-petitioner filed a revision against the order directing acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 3 for an offence under Section 325 IPC. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, in the meantime, impugned their conviction for offences under Sections 323/324 IPC before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has maintained the conviction of the respondents under Sections 323/324 IPC, but has granted them the benefit of probation. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present revision challenging this action of the lower appellate Crl. Revision No. 2132 of 2010 -2- Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a clear evidence of fracture, which has been ignored for some undisclosed reasons. The trial Curt has found that PW-1 did not state about having sustained this fracture in her index finger in the course of her deposition. Such fracture was also not pointed out by other witnesses like PW-2 & PW-3. It is only on the basis of X-ray report (Ex. PW-5/A) that this fracture is being alleged. The Court formed a view that the prosecution could not establish beyond the reasonable doubt that the fracture was attributed due to the beatings of the respondents. Another view may be possible in this regard on the basis of evidence, but simply on that count interference may not be called for. Possibility of another view may not be a valid ground to interfere by invoking revisional jurisdiction. In this regard, reference can be made to the Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, 2002(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 61. The grievance raised by the petitioner against the order of release of respondents No.1 to 3 on probation may also not require any interference. It has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that consideration for release of the person convicted on probation is a mandatory requirement. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. Both the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. December 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE