In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 192 of 1995 Date of decision : February 15, 2008 Chinta Singh and others ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This order of mine shall dispose of the criminal revision petition preferred against the order dated 24.2.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 17.4.1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar convicting the accused-petitioners under Sections 326, 325, 324 IPC and sentencing Chinta Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 326 IPC; accused Sita Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 9 months under Section 324 IPC; Balwant Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 IPC. However, Lachhman Singh and Shingara Singh were ordered to be released on probation. The case was registered by SI Kuldip Singh on the statement of Hazura Singh containing allegations that on 27.3.1998, at about 6.00 AM, when he along with his father Kartar Singh were going to Babar Depot and were near the field of Sucha Singh, Chinta Singh and Shingara Singh armed with gandasies, Lachhman Singh, Balwant Singh and Sita Singh armed with Kulharies emerged at the scene and exhorted to teach them a lesson for taking their land. Chinta Singh inflicted gandasi blow from its reverse side, Sita Singh inflicted kulhari blow on the finger and right hand of Crl. Revision No. 192 of 1995 -2- *** complainant. Shingara Singh inflicted gandasi blow on his right arm. Lachhman Singh inflicted gandasi blow from the blunt side on his left shoulder, Chinta inflicted gandasi blow from its sharp side on the right leg of Kartar Singh, Shingara Singh inflicted gandasi blow from its blunt side on the head of Kartar Singh. He inflicted another gandasi blow from its sharp side on the back of his head. Sita Singh inflicted Kulhari blow from the blunt side on the face of Kartar Singh as a result of which his two teeth were broken. Balwant Singh inflicted Kulhari blow on the left wrist of Kartar Singh. Lachhman Singh inflicted Kulhari blow from its blunt side near the right elbow and another blow on the back of Kartar Singh. Hue and cry raised by them attracted Gurmit Singh son of Darbara Singh and Mohinder Singh, who saved them from the clutches of the petitioners. The motive behind the occurrence was that during the consolidation of the holdings, the land belonging to the petitioners fell to the share of Kartar Singh and Hazura Singh and they took possession of the same. Gurmit Singh took the complainant and his father in a car for treatment in Civil Hospital, Kharar. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant in the hospital, this case was registered. Challan was presented in the Court. The petitioners were put to trial and were convicted. Their appeal was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition. Arguments heard. Record perused. Multifold contentions including delay in lodging the FIR and interested witnesses have been urged, but the same appear to have been elaborately dealt with. The trial court has dealt with and appreciated the evidence in right perspective. No such illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out suggesting interference at my end. Faced with the situation, it has been specifically pointed out that out of the five accused, two accused namely Lachhman Singh and Shingara Singh were extended benefit of probation, though they had also participated in the commission of the crime. Sita Singh was less then 20 years of age and was first offender, but he was refused the benefit of probation on the flimsy grounds, therefore, he requested for treating all the accused at par and to extend benefit of probation to all of them. Crl. Revision No. 192 of 1995 -3- *** Having given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions as put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the occurrence in this case took place in the year 1988. The petitioners are the first offenders and no such bad antecedents have been brought on the record so as to refuse leniency to them. The petitioners have already suffered agony of the trial for the last 30 years, then it would be travesty of justice to send them to prison at this stage. They have already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence. Two accused have already been extended benefit of probation. Sita Singh was below 21 years of age at the time of occurrence. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion ends of justice would be met if sentence is reduced to already undergone and they are burdened with compensation to be paid to the injured. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that already undergone by them. However, they shall pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to the injured in equal shares. Mr. Brijeshwar Kanwar, Advocate Amicus Curiae, may claim his remuneration as per rules. February 15, 2008 (A.N.Jindal) deepak Judge To be referred to reporter: Yes/No.