IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2150 of 2004 Date of decision: 19th May, 2009 Brij Lal and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Kharb, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners Brij Lal and Sultan were tried in case FIR No. 107 dated 21.07.1994 registered at Police Station Baragudha under Sections 323, 506, 325, 34 IPC. The trial Court sentenced both the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323/34 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each under Section 325/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Manmohan Kumar complainant had made a statement to police on 21st July, 1994. It was stated therein that on 20th July, 1994, he had gone to his fields, when he found both the petitioners digging his fields. On protest made, there was exchange of hot words between the complainant and the accused petitioners. Petitioners claimed possession over the land, however, complainant refused to leave the fields. Therefore, he was attacked by both the accused petitioners. Brij Lal caused several Criminal Revision No. 2150 of 2004 blows from the blunt side of Kasia. Sultan also delivered number of blows to the complainant from the blunt side of Kasia. Complainant sustained injuries and he raised alarm, which attracted Satish Kumar and Balkar Singh to the spot. On arrival of witnesses at the spot, accused petitioners decamped along with the weapons of offence. Complainant was got admitted in the hospital. After medico-legal examination of the complainant was conducted, he was radiologically examined by Dr.R.K. Bishnoi PW-4. Radiologist found a fracture in right fifth metacarpal bone of the complainant. This injury was declared grievous. In the present revision petition, petitioners have prayed for their acquittal. Mr. N.K. Sanghi appearing for the petitioners has stated that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction recorded by two courts below, as injured Manmohan Kumar has himself appeared and has deposed against the petitioners. Counsel has further submitted that except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements, there is nothing in his arsenal and since two courts below have found Manmohan Kumar witness PW-1 to be reliable, Mr. Sanghi has submitted that he will not be able to persuade this Court to tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has made an alternative prayer and has submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence had taken place on 20th July, 1994 and the petitioners have suffered a protracted trial of about 15 years, they should be leniently dealt with. It has further been submitted that the petitioners, before the registration of the present FIR and thereafter, have committed no offence and they are leading life of peaceful, honest citizens. Counsel has further submitted that in case petitioners are sent behind the bars at this stage, it will disrupt the peace prevailing in the village, as the petitioners and the complainant are residing in the same locality. It has been submitted that this Court should also consider that grievous injury is on the base of the 2 Criminal Revision No. 2150 of 2004 finger. It has been prayed that sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to already undergone. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. I am of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to their submitting bond that they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. The prayer for reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioners to already undergone, is not accepted as petitioners and complainant belong to the same village and releasing the petitioners on probation will bind them to ensure peace in the village. However, the complainant is required to be compensated. Therefore, cost of litigation is assessed as Rs.2000/-. However, both the petitioners shall also deposit Rs.5000/- each towards compensation to be disbursed to the injured complainant Manmohan Kumar. On deposit of the amount of cost of litigation and compensation, the trial Court shall accept bonds for releasing the petitioners on probation. The fine already deposited shall be adjusted towards the compensation to be paid by the petitioners. The amount shall be deposited within three months after the receipt of certified copy of this order. In case amount of cost of litigation and compensation is not deposited within the time specified, no benefit of grant of probation shall accrue to the petitioners. With these modifications in the sentence, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 19, 2009 rps 3