Crl. Revision No.1239 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1239 of 2005 Date of decision : 19.02.2010 Pawan and another .... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present petitioners Pawan and his mother Savitri were named as accused in case FIR No.246 dated 14.04.1997 registered at Poice Station City Bhiwani, under Sections 323/325/34 IPC. In the present case, FIR was lodged by PW-1 Gobind. He stated that on 30.03.1997, he along with his friend Ajmer Singh was going to see the plot of Ajmer Singh in bank colony. Accused Pawan and Savitri met them and asked as to why they have come to see the plot. This resulted into an altercation. Pawan accused gave a lathi blow in the abdomen of Gobind and Savitri gave a brick blow on the head of Gobind. Gobind fell down and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani. His statement as PW-1/A was recorded on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Ajmer Singh PW-2 corroborated the Crl. Revision No.1239 of 2005 -2- testimony of Gobind PW-1. He stated that Pawan gave a lathi blow in the abdomen of Gobind and Savitri gave a brick blow on the head of Gobind. He further stated that he was also given injuries by the accused person but no medico legal examination of Ajmer Singh was conducted. PW-5 Dr. K.L. Bawa, radiologically examined Gobind on 31.03.1997 and found fracture on 9th and 10th rib on left side of the chest. The report of the radiologist to this effect has been exhibited as Ex.PW5/A. Dr. K.D. Sharma, PW-3 had medico legally examined Gobind PW-1. SI Hari Charan, PW-4 on the basis of statement Ex.PW1/A had registered a formal FIR Ex.PW4/A. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. The trial court had rejected the argument that accused had acted in self-defence of their property. The accused have taken a plea that the complainant Gobind and his friend Ajmer Singh had committed an offence of criminal trespass. The trial court sentenced both the petitioners to undergo RI for 6 months under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused were also sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days under Section 325/34 IPC. Both the petitioners filed an appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial court. However, it had released Savitri on probation and maintained the conviction of Pawan but reduced the sentence from 2 years RI to 1 year RI under section 325/34 IPC. Sentence of fine and default Crl. Revision No.1239 of 2005 -3- clause was maintained. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioners This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that petitioner Pawan who was alleged to have armed with lathi had not repeated any blow. He gave only one injury which resulted in the fracture of 9th and 10th rib. It has also come in the FIR that before the lathi blow was given, there was an altercation between the parties. Mother of the petitioner has been released on probation. Occurrence in the present case has taken place in the year 1997. A period of 13 years is going to elapse. Pawan was taken into custody on 8.07.2005 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 19.08.2005. He has undergone one month and 12 days of actual sentence. This Court is of the view that taking into consideration nature of injury, origin of the occurrence and protracted trial, an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to reform himself and lead a life of rectitude. Accordingly, it is ordered that sentence of the petitioner Pawan be suspended and he be released on probation for a period of one year to maintain the good conduct, behaviour and peace. The trial court shall call upon the petitioner Pawan to furnish bonds/surety bonds to its satisfaction. In case of breach of any of the terms and conditions of the bonds, petitioner will be called upon to serve the sentence. However, the cost of litigation qua accused Pawan is determined as Rs.15,000/-. The same shall be deposited in the trial court. In case, cost of litigation is not deposited, no benefit shall accrue and the present revision petition will be treated as dismissed. Savitri is already granted probation by the Lower Appellate Court, therefore no case to Crl. Revision No.1239 of 2005 -4- vary the same is made out. The present revision petition is disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 19-02-2010 JUDGE manju