IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : August 05, 2009 Dharam Singh and another ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. NR Dahia, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for complainant-Ravinder Kumar L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 18785 of 2009 The application is allowed and grounds of appeal filed before the appellate court annexed with the application are taken on record. Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2009 By this common order, I am disposing of two revision petitions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2009, filed by convicts Dharam Singh and Vijender Pal and Criminal Revision No. 390 of 2009 filed by complainant Ravinder Kumar because both these revision petitions have arisen out of the same judgments of the courts below. Ravinder Kumar lodged FIR alleging that both the accused and Kamal Dass caused him injuries including grievous hurt. Kamal Dass died during the pendency of the trial. Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The prosecution case was supported by injured-complainant Ravinder Kumar PW2 and another eye witness Saraswati PW3. Their statements were corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Kumud Sharma PW1 stated about medical examination of the complainant. Five injuries were found on his person. Dr. Promila PW4 stated that on X-ray examination of the complainant, fracture fibula left leg was found. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 7.5.2004 convicted Dharam Singh and Vijender Pal under sections 323, 325 read with section 34 IPC and vide order dated 8.5.2004 sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs 200/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 323 read with section 34 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs 300/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month under section 325 IPC. Both substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal preferred by the convicts, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 24.11.2008, while upholding the conviction, ordered release of the convicts on probation of good conduct and converted the fine amount into costs of the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts have preferred Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2009 praying for their acquittal whereas injured-complainant Ravinder Kumar has preferred Criminal Revision No. 390 of 2009 for restoration of the sentence awarded to the convicts by the trial Magistrate. Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2009 (O&M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the convicts vehemently contended that there are contradictions in the statements of Ravinder Kumar PW2 and Saraswati PW3. However, evidence is not to be re-appreciated in revision when there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioners by both the courts below. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in revision petition. On the other hand, statements of Ravinder Kumar and Saraswati are corroborated by medical evidence. The matter was reported to the police immediately whereupon report was recorded in daily diary although formal FIR was registered after receipt of x-ray report regarding grievous hurt. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent finding of the courts below regarding conviction of both accused. The said finding is accordingly upheld. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2009 filed by the convicts is dismissed. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that another FIR has been registered on 28.5.2007 against Vijender Pal one of the two convicts. It is contended that substantive sentence should be imposed on the convicts. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The convicts are not reported to be previous convicts. The offence is not of serious nature. The grievous hurt caused to the complainant is not on vital part being on left leg. The learned appellate court has, therefore, rightly granted the benefit of probation to the convicts Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2009 (O&M) -4- because there is no special reason to deny the said benefit to them. In so far as FIR registered on 28.5.2007 against convict Vijender Pal is concerned, the same was not even brought to the notice of the appellate court. Moreover, Vijender Pal has not yet been convicted in the said subsequent case which did not occur during the probation period. No case for imposing substantive sentence upon the convicts is, therefore, made out. However, some compensation has to be awarded to the complainant. Appellate court should have awarded some compensation to the injured complainant which has not been done. Consequently, in revision petition filed by injured-complainant, it is ordered that both the convicts shall pay Rs 10,000/- each as compensation to injured-complainant Ravinder Kumar. The compensation amount shall be deposited by the convicts before the trial court and shall be paid to the injured-complainant by the trial court. If the compensation amount is not deposited by the convicts within two months from today, then the substantive sentence imposed upon them by the trial Magistrate shall stand restored. Criminal Revision No. 390 of 2009 filed by complainant Ravinder Kumar is disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 05, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'