CRM No. 28160-M of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-28160-M of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.03.2009 Amar Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant, challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge (A), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, whereby he upheld the decision of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri releasing the respondents No.2 and 3 on probation subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety of the like amount each for a period of one year and keeping peace and good behaviour during the said period. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of the petitioner under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The allegation levelled by the complainant was that respondents No.2 and 3 raised a wall in her landed property. When the petitioner and her husband accosted the accused regarding illegal construction, the petitioner was assaulted and given a Gandasa blow on her forehead near the left eye. The petitioner was removed to Civil Hospital, Sherpur and the instant case was CRM No. 28160-M of 2008 2 registered by the police thereafter. The trial ensued. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses while the defence examined six witnesses. After appreciation of the evidence on record including the MLR etc., the trial court came to the conclusion that accused Gulzar Singh inflicted injury on the forehead of the petitioner on 15.6.2003 on the exhortation of co-accused Jagsir Singh. The trial court thus convicted both the accused under Section 324/34 IPC. However, while considering the question of sentence, the trial court decided to release the accused on probation of one year finding that both of them were poor and had minor children to support. A revision petition was preferred by the complainant before the Sessions Court, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur on July 05, 2007, upholding the judgment of conviction as well as sentence awarded by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that sufficient evidence was led before the trial court for it to reach the conclusion that injury on the person of Amar Kaur had been caused by Gulzar Singh on the exhortation of Jagsir Singh. The trial court arrived at this conclusion after examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including that of the doctors i.e. PW3 Dr. Ramesh Sharma PW-5, the Radiologist and PW6 Dr. Amita Luna, Medical Officer. The trial court thus convicted the accused under CRM No. 28160-M of 2008 3 Section 324/34 IPC. However, keeping in view the penurious condition of the accused and their minor children, who were dependent upon them, the trial court exercised its discretion while deciding the question of sentence and released the petitioner on probation of one year subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety of the like amount each. The appellate court also upheld the decision arrived at by the trial court. The counsel for the petitioner has only addressed arguments regarding the quantum of sentence awarded by the courts below and submitted that after having found the accused guilty of offence under Section 324/34 IPC, there was hardly any ground to release them on probation. I am not impressed with the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. In my considered view, there is no legal infirmity with the order of the trial court releasing the accused, respondents No.2 and 3 herein,on probation keeping in view their penurious condition and the fact that both of them have minor children to support. While releasing the petitioners on probation, the trial court has taken into consideration that both the accused are first offenders and, therefore, benefit of probation could be granted to them. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the State against the impugned judgment. Under the facts and circumstances of the case I find no CRM No. 28160-M of 2008 4 ground to interfere on the quantum of sentence which is the limited prayer in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 16, 2009 'rajpal'