CRR No.1599 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1599 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.01.2011 Boota Singh ....Petitioner Versus Malkiat Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 13.8.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court against the accused in FIR No.134 dated 2.10.2004 under Sections 324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi and sentencing them as under: - (i) Malkiat Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 324 IPC. (ii) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323/34 IPC. (i) Harlakhwinder Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 324/34 IPC. (ii) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323/34 IPC. CRR No.1599 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Aggrieved from the order of the Trial Court vide judgment dated 3.3.2008, appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction against the accused persons directed them to be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing of probation bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount each. Brief facts of the present case are that on 30.9.2004 at about 6.00 p.m., in the area of village Haibitpur, complainant/injured Buta Singh (PW2) was present inside his house and was separating suhaga from the tractor. In the meanwhile, Maliat Singh (who is son of elder brother of Buta Singh) accused came there and told him that he has poured water in his paddy crops, so he is unable to cut his paddy crops. On this Butta Singh told him that he has not done it intentionally and if any loss is caused to the accused, he is ready to make good of the same. In the meanwhile, accused Harlakhwinder singh (son of Malkiat Singh) came there and raised lalkara that Buta Singh should be taught a lesson for pouring water in their paddy fields. On this, accused Malkiat singh took out datar from under-neath his shirt and gave its blow on the body of Buta Singh complainant, which hit on the right side of head of the complainant. Thereafter, Malkiat Singh gave another blow of datar, which hit on wrist of right hand of Buta Singh. Buta Singh fell down on the ground and accused Harlakhwinder Singh gave him fist blows on various parts of his body. Buta Singh raised hue and cry upon which Suba Singh, Gian Singh (father of PW2) came there. Suba Singh and Gian Singh saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused, whereby, both accused fled away from the place of occurrence CRR No.1599 of 2009 (O&M) -3- alongwith the weapon. Thereafter, Buta Singh was brought to Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi, by the PWs where he was medically examined by Dr. N.S. Teji (PW1). Report regarding MLR (Ex.PW1/A) of the complainant was sent to the police station. Police came to the Hospital and on the basis of statement of complainant (Ex.PA), FIR (Ex.PA/2) was recorded, and rough site plan (Ex.PC) was prepared by ASI Tirath Singh (PW4). Both accused were arrested. Investigation was conducted and during the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, challan against both accused was presented in the court. In the opinion of this Court, since total sentence awarded to the accused is for a period of one year, hence first appellate court was well within its jurisdiction directing the release of the accused on probation on executing bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount each. Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when a good piece of evidence is escaped from the notice of the Court proving the guilt or Court below has committed manifest error of law or jurisdictional error. This is a case where appellate court has exercised jurisdiction/discretion in releasing the accused on probation. No interference is called for. Revision is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge January 18, 2011 R.S.