IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revn. No. 17 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION : 03.03.2009 Mohinder Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Persent: Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Mohinder Singh, Mahan Singh, Gurtej Singh and Manna Singh were tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, in case FIR No. 272 dated 24.11.1997 registered at Police Station Barnala, under Sections 452/324/323/34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 1.10.1999, passed by the trial court, Mohinder Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 452 IPC; six months under Section 324 IPC; and one month under Section 323 read with Section IPC. Mahan Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 452 IPC; three months under Section 324 read with Section IPC; and three months under Section 323 IPC. Gurtej Singh was sentenced Crl. Revn. No. 17 of 2002 -2- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 452 IPC; three months under Section 324 IPC; and three months under Section 323 IPC. Manna Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 452 IPC; three months under Section 324 IPC; and three months under Section 323 IPC. Against the said judgment, all the accused filed appeal. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide its judgment dated 20.12.2001, affirmed the conviction and sentence of the present petitioners, namely Mohinder Singh, Mahan Singh and Gurtej Singh and appeal qua them was dismissed. However, while setting aside the conviction and sentence of the fourth accused, namely Manna Singh, he was acquitted and appeal qua him was allowed. Hence, this revision petition. 2. In this case, as per the prosecution case, on 23.11.1997 at about 4.00 P.M., Mohinder Singh and his sons Mahan Singh and Gurtej Singh criminally trespassed into the house of their neighbourer Buta Singh (complainant), situated on Naiwala Road, Barnala, and caused injuries to him (Buta Singh) and his father Gurnam Singh. The cause of grudge, as stated by the complainant Buta Singh, was that his son Joginder Singh had litigation with regard to some land with petitioner Mohinder Singh. As per the medical evidence, available on record, each of the injured in this case received two injuries and the same were found simple in nature. 3. All the accused, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the evidence appearing against them and stated that they were not Crl. Revn. No. 17 of 2002 -3- present at the place of occurrence, as Kaka Singh – father of accused Mohinder Singh had expired and his bhog ceremony was held on 21,11,1997, which was attended by 5000 people and they served Laddos to about 3000 people and remained busy to wind up the function and did not go to Naiwala Road, Barnala, till 24.11.1997. 3. The trial court, after considering the material available on record and the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the defence, convicted and sentenced the accused, as indicated above. 4. During the course of arguments, when learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to point out any illegality or perversity in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, he submits that with regard to the quantum of sentence, a lenient view may be taken. In this regard, he submits that out of the sentence of six months imprisonment, the petitioners have already undergone actual sentence of 23 days and since 7.1.2002, they are on bail. They have already suffered protracted trial for the last about 11 years. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 Mohinder Singh is about 65 years old person and the remaining two petitioners are more than 40 years of age. He submits that all the petitioners are the first offenders. While relying upon Nasiruddin Khan and others v. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 129, he submits that the petitioners may be released on probation. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not strongly opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Crl. Revn. No. 17 of 2002 -4- 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the case of Nasiruddin Khan's case (supra) and keeping in view the age, antecedents of the petitioners and the fact that the incident in this case took place on 23.11.1997 i.e. more than 11 ¼ years and that the complainant as well as the accused in this case are neighbourers, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners in jail at this stage, when they have already undergone 23 days of actual sentence and are on bail since 7.1.2002 and the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioners are released on probation. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners is upheld and their sentence of imprisonment is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under the supervision of the Probation Officer, for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing probation bonds to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer. March 03, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE