Crl. Revision No.1066 of 2005 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1066 of 2005 Date of Decision:-14.10.2010 Chandgi Ram & another. ......Petitioners. Versus The State of Haryana. ......Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL. Present:- Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. *** A.N. JINDAL, J.(ORAL) Challenger in this petition is to the judgment dated 21.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissing the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 7.7.2000 and order of sentence dated 10.7.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal convicting and sentencing the petitioners-accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC; and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for Crl. Revision No.1066 of 2005 #2# period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.800/- each for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The appeal preferred by them also failed. Mr. J.S. Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has produced the custody certificates by way of affidavits furnished by Mr. Sanjay Bangar, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala which reveal that the petitioners-accused have already undergone 24 days of custody out of the total sentence awarded to them. Submission made by the counsel are that the injuries on the person of Balbir and Kitabo were ultimately found to be simple. The Appellate Court was of the view that injuries do not fall within the purview of Section 326 IPC. Further submission is they have already deposited the fine; and the other party had also suffered injuries; both the complainant as well as the accused hail from the same village; the occurrence took place way back on 30.5.1994 and it is not brought on record that they are the habitual offenders. Having examined the contention and the same have merit, therefore, some lenient view could be taken in the present case. Resultantly, I dismiss the petition with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the petitioners are directed to be released on probation on their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behavior for one year and in case of breach of conditions of the bond they will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, fine is converted into cost of litigation. Crl. Revision No.1066 of 2005 #3# Copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. ( A.N. JINDAL ) JUDGE 14th October, 2010 Vinay