CRR No. 2909 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 2909 of 2009 Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Gurmail Kaur ........ Petitioner Versus Surinder Kaur and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. JORA SINGH, J. Gurmail Kaur, preferred this revision to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.5.2009, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, in a private complaint No. 14 of 6.10.1997, under Sections 323/324/148/149/506/392/394/ 120-B IPC, filed against Surinder Kaur and others was rejected and Surinder Kaur, was released on probation. Allegation of the petitioner-complainant is that she is staying in Nibia. Her two daughters and one son are residing in Tanda Urmur. Accused are her relatives. Surinder Kaur, accused owned plot measuring 15 marlas situated in Tanda Urmur. Plot was near the house CRR No. 2909 of 2009 -2- of the complainant which was purchased from accused No. 1 in the year 1986, for a consideration of ` 50,000/- but sale deed was not executed in favour of the complainant. Possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant and the said plot was levelled by filling earth, fodder cutting machine with engine was installed. Mangers were constructed to tether cattle. Boundary wall was also constructed. Water and electricity connection were also obtained by the complainant. About one month back accused No.1 Surinder Kaur and her son Lakhbir Singh @ Sona-accused No.2 started harassing the complainant. Complaint was sent to police Station Tanda. Complainant also filed an application against the accused but no action was taken by the police. Police started dispossessing the complainant forcibly from the plot and house in her possession. On 27.9.1997, at about 7.00 p.m. accused had summoned the complainant. Police also directed the complainant to come back in the morning and when complainant was present near her house then noticed the accused standing in front of her house. At that time, Lakhbir Singh, was armed with a knife, Surinder Kaur, was armed with a brick and Gian Singh, was armed with iron rod, then accused Lakhbir Singh, raised lalkara to teach a lesson to the complainant and break open the lock of the gate. With the help of iron rod carried by Gian Singh accused, lock was broken. After going inside the plot, accused started causing damage to household articles lying there. Accused had damaged the fodder cutting machine and engine. When complainant requested the accused not to damage the articles then Surinder Kaur, with the help of a big brick gave injury on her head. Lakhbir Singh, gave knife blow hitting her left arm. Accused No. 3 CRR No. 2909 of 2009 -3- Balwinder Singh @ Bittu, tried to snatch the chain of gold and ear rings. Complainant fell down on the ground then Gian Singh-accused No. 4 gave kick blows in the stomach. Raula was raised and on hearing raula, her daughters namely Bhupinder Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur and son Harmit Singh, came at the spot. Ruldu Ram and Shinda also came to the spot and rescued her from the clutches of the accused. Complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Tanda where she was medico-legally examined. Statement of the complainant was also recorded by the police but no action against the accused. Private complaint under Sections 323/324/148/149/506/ 392/394/120-B IPC was filed. After preliminary evidence, Surinder Kaur and Lakhbir Singh, were ordered to the summoned to face trial under Sections 323/324/34 IPC. Evidence was led by the complainant and after the close of evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the complainant and pleaded to be innocent. Opportunity was given to lead defence but no defence was led. Surinder Kaur, was convicted under Sections 323/324/34 IPC. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2006, appeal was preferred by Surinder Kaur but appeal was rejected vide judgment dated 12.5.2009, with a directed to release Surinder Kaur, on probation. She was also directed to pay ` 5000/- as compensation payable to Gurmail Kaur. Against the judgment dated 12.5.2009, present revision was preferred by Gurmail Kaur. CRR No. 2909 of 2009 -4- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent is related to the petitioner. Respondent was owning a plot measuring 15 marlas and the same was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1986 in the sum of ` 50,000/- but due to close relationship sale deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner. Possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner. Fodder cutting machine with engine was installed. Boundary wall was also constructed and on 27.9.1997, in the evening respondent had caused injuries to the petitioner. Fodder cutting machine and engine were also damaged. Respondent was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323/324/34 IPC but she was released on probation. Argued that impugned judgment be set aside and Surinder Kaur-respondent be directed to undergo imprisonment under Sections 323/324/34 IPC. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to differ with the finding of the Ist Appellate Court. According to story, Surinder Kaur-respondent, threw brick bats hitting the petitioner. Injury noticed was found to be simple in nature. File shows that respondent is related to the petitioner and earlier there was dispute amongst the parties. Petitioner had given injures to the respondent on 12.9.1994 a about 9.30 p.m. Respondent is an old lady and she is facing the agony of trial from 21.11.2001. Two injuries were noticed as per MLR. Injuries were found to be simple in nature. Respondent is the first offender. While ordering the respondent to be released on probation, she was directed to deposit ` 5000/- as CRR No. 2909 of 2009 -5- compensation. No doubt, petitioner is also a lady but keeping in view the facts of the case, Ist Appellate Court, rightly ordered the respondent to be released on probation. ` 5000/- was also directed to be deposited, payable to the petitioner as compensation, when the injuries noticed were simple in nature. Respondent is related to the petitioner. Earlier litigation amongst the parties. Respondent was rightly directed to be released on probation. She is appearing in Court to face trial w.e.f. 21.11.2001. No reason to differ with the finding of the Ist Appellate Court. In 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 868, “Daljit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab through Secretary Home Affairs”, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Sections 360/361 Cr.P.C. accused released on probation. Sections 360 Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act, pertains to release of accused. Under Section 361 Cr.P.C. it is obligatory on Court to apply one or the other beneficial provision except for special reasons. Where the provisions of the Probation Act are applicable the employment of Section 360 Cr.P.C. is not to be made. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that there is no special reason why to send an old lady to jail to undergo imprisonment. No reason to differ with the finding of the Ist Appellate Court. The instant revision petition without merits is dismissed. May 2, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE