Crl. Rev. No.1880 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1880 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.07.2010 Hoshiar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Mahabir and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is revision against the judgment dated 04.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. Brief facts of the case are that Harpal Singh and his brother Krishan Lal and Hoshiar Singh had purchased a plot from Hardwari Lal. Mahabir and Satbir are having a plot adjoining to their plot. When Mahabir was digging foundation of his plot, Hoshiar Singh stopped him from doing so on the ground that the plot had not been demarcated. Subsequently, a compromise was arrived at in the panchayat. In spite of the compromise, when Harpal and Hoshiar were going to their filed, Mahabir told them not to use the Rasta to which, Hoshiar replied that the Rasta was of panchayat. Crl. Rev. No.1880 of 2009 2 However, the said argument turned into a violent fight and Mahabir along with others inflicted injuries. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. Mahabir, Mahender, Virendeer and Hem Chand were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, on the ground that they were not found present at the time of occurrence and also on the account that their names have been falsely implicated. However, Mahabir and Hem Chand were found guilty of having inflicted simple injuries on the person of Hoshiar and Harpal i.e. PW-1 and PW-3. Thus, they were convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the convicts were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for commission of offence under Section 324/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The said period of sentence was awarded keeping in mind that they were facing trial for the last ten years. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in appeal, vide Order dated 04.11.2008 upheld the Order of sentence dated 16.11.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari but modified the same by releasing the respondents/appellants on probation by holding in para 15 as under :- “15. In the instance case, the appellants are facing the trial for the last 12 years and they are the first offenders. There is no previous conviction record against them. Both the appellants are poor fellows and they have placed themselves at the mercy of the court. As such, both the appellants are liable to be given the benefit under the Probation of Offender Act and ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months subject to each one of them furnishing the bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court and further that during the period of probation they shall keep peace and be of Crl. Rev. No.1880 of 2009 3 good behaviour. In the event of breach of any of the conditions or the appellant found committing breach shall surrender in the court to receive the sentence and be sent to serve out the sentence.” Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed. While Challenging the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the First Appellate Court has only considered the fact that the convicts- respondents were facing trial for the last 12 years and they were the first offenders. However, the First Appellate Court has failed to consider that the petitioner has lost the vision of his left eye and for causing that injury, the respondents did not spend a single day behind the bars and therefore, it is mere mockery of justice that the person causing such injuries go scot free. However, in the same breath, it was submitted that the appellate Court has not chosen to grant any compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the same and stated that only simple injuries were suffered. The respondents were convicted only under Section 324 IPC. They are first offenders. Mahabir has a son, who is 100% disabled. His old mother is ill and his father has already expired. He is the sole bread winner of his family. Hem Chand is also a sole bread earner of his family. They are facing trial for more than ten years and the offence is minor one. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Out of the total fine so realized, Rs.3000/- were ordered to be given to injured Hoshiar Singh and Rs. 2000/- as compensation were further ordered to be given to Harpal Singh, injured after the expiry of the period of appeal/revision. Moreover, a fight was a sudden fight. The simple argument turned into a free fight between the parties. In fact, two of the co-accused Mahender and Virendeer had to undergo trial and litigation for almost ten years before they were found to be falsely enroped. They were acquitted as they were not found present at the time of occurrence. The finding was that they have Crl. Rev. No.1880 of 2009 4 been falsely implicated. The present respondents, too, have been facing trial for the last more than 14 year. Moreover, the order of probation was passed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide Order dated 04.11.2008. Thus, the respondents have already undergone and completed the probation period since long. There is nothing on record to show that the said probation period has been misused. Thus, there is no ground to recall and set aside the Order dated 04.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, modifying the sentence. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner would be satisfied, if some compensation is granted to him as per ground No.8 of the revision petition. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed except with the modification that Rs.10,000/- shall be given to injured Hoshiar Singh and Rs.5,000/- to injured Harpal Singh as compensation which shall be over and above, the amount already awarded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari. The said amount shall be paid within two months from the passing of this Order. Disposed off in the above terms. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 16.07.2010 JUDGE gurpreet