CRR No.2020 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 05.09.2011 Charanjit Singh @ Charni ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) This petition assails the judgment dated 18.08.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner with the modification in the sentence. The trial Court vide judgment dated 24/25.01.2011 had convicted the accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months for the offence under Section 323 IPC. However, the Appellate Court, on the prayer to extend some leniency by the counsel, modified the sentence by reducing the same to 4 months under Section 324 IPC and 2 months under Section 323 IPC. However, he was directed to pay compensation to the tune of CRR No.2020 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Rs.1000/- to the injured. The facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that complainant-Mahender Singh @ Gollu got recorded his statement to the police that on 15.03.2006, his son Parampal was talking on his mobile phone in an open space in the grain market,Ganga along with his relative,but did not return. At about 8.30 P.M., when he had just stepped out of his house, he saw that the petitioner armed with a subble (iron rod) was abusing him and he inflicted a subble blow on his head, whereupon, he raised hue and cry, upon which, attracted his wife Manjit Kaur. In the mean time, the petitioner had again inflicted a second blow on his head and then gave a fist blow on his left eye. Resultantly, he fell down. Petitioner also inflicted a subble blow to his wife in her back. On raising hue and cry, the petitioner fled away. The case was registered and investigated and ultimately charge report was presented against the petitioner. Conviction not assailed, only contention raised is for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Heard, it is stated that the petitioner in this case dared to use a deadly weapon to cause injuries to Parampal and Manjit Kaur during night time. The occurrence stands established from the testimonies of the complainant and the injured witnesses. They have withstood the test of cross-examination. The injury under Section 324 IPC could be caused with the sharp side of the sabbal and blunt injuries could be caused when it is used stick wise. No plausible defence has been led by the petitioner in order to prove his innocence. Both the Courts below have returned consistent findings of fact with regard to culpability of the petitioner in the CRR No.2020 of 2011 (O&M) 3 commission of crime. The prayer of the petitioner to extend him the benefit of probation, was considered by the Appellate Court, but was turned down in the given circumstances of the case. Thus, the petitioner cannot come to contend that the Court ignored to consider the benefit of probation. In any case, probation could be granted only in peculiar circumstances of the case. Every offence committed by the accused cannot be condoned by extending the benefit of probation. The accused, in this case, has not spared a lady and caused injuries to her also and therefore, no benefit of probation could be extended to him. The trial Court had awarded a very meager sentence, which was again reduced to one-half by the Appellate Court. No further concession could be granted to him. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 5th September, 2011 JUDGE ajp