IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 346 of 1998 Date of decision: 12th May, 2009 Suresh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Lamha, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Suresh son of Shera, Gopal son of Hari Ram, Dheera @ Raghbir Singh son of Chander and Krishan son of Hari Ram. They were tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat along with their co-accused Chander and Kanta in case FIR No. 115 of 1988 registered at Police Station Sadar Sonepat under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC. Case of the prosecution is that on 7th May, 1988, Antu son of Kundan, Ramphal and Karambir arrived in injured condition at Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Statement of Antu was recorded, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged. Antu stated that he is residing in village Dewru right from his childhood. He was having a son, Ramphal aged 32 years. Complainant had taken on lease land in the village for cultivation. On the day of occurrence, complainant along with his son gathered cucumber from the Criminal Revision No. 346 of 1998 fields and when reached at bus stand, he learnt that Chander son of Ramji Lal had assaulted and caused injuries to sister-in-law Kitabo due to quarrel over some minor matter between the children. Kitabo had called her husband Ram Singh and her son Karambir. Karambir came and he was proceeding to the house of Chander, when complainant and his son Ramphal told Karambir not to pick up the quarrel. At that time, Chander son of Ramji Lal, Dheera @ Raghbir Singh son of Chander and Gopal son of Hari Ram reached at the spot. They were armed with lathis. Chander gave a lathi blow on the left leg of the complainant. Dheera gave a lathi blow to Ramphal. At that stage, Krishan son of Hari Ram and Suresh son of Shera and Kanta wife of Dheera also arrived at the spot armed with lathis. Suresh and Krishan caused many lathi blows to Ramphal. Kanta gave a daranti blow to Karambir. On hearing noise, Bhim Singh son of Pirthi was attracted to the spot and he saved the complainant from the hands of accused assailants, who on arrival of the witness decamped from the spot. Complainant himself appeared as PW-1, Bhim Singh eye witness as PW-2, Kitabo as PW-3, Karambir eye witness as PW-4 and Ramphal another injured as PW-5. Kanta died during the pendency of the trial and Chander during the pendency of appeal. The trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Petitioners were also convicted and sentenced under Section 323/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 days. 2 Criminal Revision No. 346 of 1998 Petitioners had filed an appeal. The appellate Court maintained the conviction, however reduced the sentence under Section 325/34 IPC from one year to six months. However, sentence of fine was maintained. Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in May 1988. Petitioners have suffered a protracted trial of 21 years. It has further been stated that in the last 21 years, petitioners have committed no offence and peace is prevailing in the village. In case petitioners are sent behind the bars, there is every possibility that peace prevailing in the village may be disturbed. It has been further submitted that petitioners have undergone about 1 month and ten days of their actual sentence. Counsel for the petitioners has prayed that sentence awarded upon the petitioners may be reduced to already undergone. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that in case sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to already undergone, accused petitioners may not be emboldened to commit the offence again. However, protracted trial, as a mitigating circumstance, is to be construed in favour of the accused petitioners. Hence, petitioners are ordered to be released on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of six months. They shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good conduct for a period of six months. Rs.1000/- is assessed as cost of litigation. However, each of the petitioners shall also pay Rs.5000/- to be paid as compensation to the injured. On deposit of the compensation, petitioners shall be released on probation, otherwise, they will not be entitled to the benefit of probation. The amount of compensation so deposited, shall be disbursed to the injured by the trial Court. 3 Criminal Revision No. 346 of 1998 With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 12, 2009 rps 4