CRR No.398 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR No.398 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.03.2009 Azad Singh ...Petitioner Versus Om Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, releasing convicts Om Singh and Mohan on probation of good conduct. Brief factual background of the case is that an FIR was registered on complaint of one Azad Singh. The complainant alleged that on 29.12.2000 at about 10.00 A.M., he was assaulted by Om Singh, Mohan, Ram Mehar sons of Om Parkash. Mohan dealt a Rumba blow on his head. Thereafter, Om Parkash caught hold of him and another Rumba blow was inflicted by Mohan. According to the complainant, the accused continued to beat him until he was rescued by certain persons. The trial court recorded the evidence of seven prosecution witnesses and two defence witnesses. It came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of Om Singh and Mohan beyond shadow of doubt and sentenced both the accused to rigorous CRR No.398 of 2009 2 imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment of the trial court was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Jind, who upheld the conviction of both the accused. However, he directed that the accused be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year by furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount. The convicts were also directed to maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of probation, failing which they would undergo the sentence awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Additional Sessions Judge took a very lenient view in releasing the convicts on probation as they had caused injuries to the complainant/ petitioner on his head. According to the counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the convicts did not deserve the concession of probation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is obvious that the lower appellate court upheld the conviction of the accused (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) and dismissed the appeal. However, keeping in view the fact that the accused had faced trial for almost seven years and were not previous offenders, it decided to grant them the concession of probation subject to certain stringent conditions. CRR No.398 of 2009 3 Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment upholding the conviction of the accused and releasing them on probation. I am of the considered view that since the convicts did not have any previous criminal record and both having large family to feed, no fault can be found with the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in deciding to release them on probation. This Criminal Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 19, 2009 'rajpal'