IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No.200 of 2004. Date of Decision: 29.6.2011. _______________________________________________ Khazan Singh. ….Petitioner. Versus. The State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner :Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondent :Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is charged for offences under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for various terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged number of grounds in support his contention that the petitioner was not guilty of the offences as charged. He submits that the learned courts below have been remiss in assessing the evidence on record and arriving at the conclusion with respect to the guilt of the petitioner herein. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2001 at around 8.30 a.m. when complainant PW2 Kalyan Singh and his Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 nephew PW3 Dhanbir Singh were cutting grass in their Ghasani (grass land), Khazan Singh and Geeta Ram both accused of the offences, pounced upon them and attacked them with sticks as a result of which PW2 Kalyan Singh sustained grievous and simple injuries and PW3 Dhanbir Singh received simple injury. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that they were not guilty and pleaded the right of self defence of private property. Copy of jamabandi Ext.D1 was also tendered in support of this contention. Learned courts below, rightly concluded that the factum of presence of the accused causing the injuries was per se proved by the statement of the accused and only thing required to be ascertained as to whether the right to defence of property was established on the record. On the evidence on record, the learned courts hold that there was no evidence on the record to prove this fact and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed and sentence accordingly reduced. Having gone through the record and the evidence, I do not find that the courts below have committed any error in appreciating the evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty. Thus, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. On the aspect of sentencing, the fact as to whether the petitioner should be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Report of the Probation Officer has to be considered. I have seen the report of the Probation Officer. From the record I find that he has recommended the case of the petitioner for release on probation. He certifies the character of the petitioner to be good. Petitioner is now 60 years old. His wife 3 Smt.Rukmani aged about 55 years lives with him. He has four daughters and two sons. One daughter is married and three of the children are studying in school. On inquiry made from the neighbours etc., the Probation Officer reports that the petitioner herein has good in cordial relations with them. He belongs to a poor family and the fight seems to have occurred in the heat of moment. However, on the last aspect, it is the finding of the Court which will be binding but from his general character profile, I do not find that this is a case where benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be denied to the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is set aside subject to the following conditions: 1. That the petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib. The bonds will be valid for a period of two years. 2. The petitioner shall undertake that he will not indulge in any anti social/criminal activities during this period and shall keep peace and good behaviour. The petitioner shall undertake that in the event of the breach of any of the conditions, he shall be liable to be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as imposed by the learned appellate Court which purpose he shall appear before the Court when so directed. 3. The Probation Officer shall also supervise the petitioner herein during this period and report as to whether any offence etc. has been committed by him. 4. Further direction is issued to the petitioner that he shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to both the injured which amount shall be paid to them equally. 5. The bonds shall be furnished within a period of three months from today and the amount shall be deposited 4 before the learned Magistrate within the same period and on deposit, the amount shall be paid to the victims. 5. That in case of breach of any of the conditions that is non furnishing of bonds or deposit of the compensation amount, the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the appellate Court shall revive. This order will not constitute as a precedent in other cases. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 29, 2011(R)