Criminal Revision No.2289 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.2289 of 2002 Date of Decision: November 12, 2009 Jagdish and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.HN Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.SS Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. This revision petition on behalf of the accused-petitioners is directed against the judgments dated 12.2.2002 and 4.9.2002 passed by the trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, respectively, whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 447/323/325 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Revision No.2289 of 2002 -2- In brief, the facts of the case are that land of the complainant measuring 6 acres situated in village Kalawas, adjoins the land of accused- Jagdish. Two days prior to the date of occurrence i.e. 13.61996,, when accused Salender, brother of accused Jagdish was cultivating his land with a tractor, when Salender tried to enter the land of the complainant from its corner. They were forbidden by the complainant from doing so on the ground that it would destroy his standing crop standing in his fields. Thereafter, all of them moved away. On 13.6.1995, at about 8.30 a.m., when complainant Pyare Lal along with his son Sushil was working in his fields, accused Salender came there on a tractor and tried to enter his fields through the fields of the complainant. At this, Sushil son of the complainant tried to stop him, but meanwhile, accused Jagdish, armed with a lathi and accused Shiv Kumar, armed with a jelly, appeared at the scene. Accused Jagdish gave a lathi blow on the right arm of Sushil, as a result of which he fell down and accused Shiv Kumar gave a jelly blow from its reverse side on the back of Sushil. When the complainant tried to rescue his son, in the meantime accused Shiv Kumar gave a jelly blow from its reverse side on the elbow of complainant, whereas accused Jagdish gave a lathi blow on his right hand. Accused Shiv Kumar also gave a jelly blow on his person from its blunt side on the left knee and accused Jagdish gave a lathi blow on the shoulder of the complainant. Accused Salender raised lalkara that the complainant-party be crushed under the tractor, whereupon, the complainant raised alarm which attracted one Mohinder son of Chhabil Dass as well as Mohra, wife of the complainant, who rescued them from the clutches of the accused persons. Criminal Revision No.2289 of 2002 -3- On a complaint lodged by the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the accused-petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 325,323,447,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, after examining the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the petitioners, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447/323/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for one month; rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court at Hisar. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, it was urged on behalf of the accused- petitioners that they do not want to challenge their conviction, however, a prayer was made to release them on probation. The Appellate Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the nature of the offences committed by the accused-petitioners, maintained the judgment of conviction and ordered the release of petitioners on probation on executing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one surety in the like amount with an undertaking that they would maintain good behaviour and peace during that period. The fine imposed by the trial Court was converted into costs of proceedings and in addition thereto , the Criminal Revision No.2289 of 2002 -4- accused-petitioners were further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- each to the injured as compensation in equal shares. Still feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Appellate Court, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. The present revision petition was admitted on 22.7.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners never instructed their counsel and also never made any statement to the extent that they do not want to challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.2.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned counsel has, therefore, challenged the judgment and order dated 4.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners had made a statement before the learned First Appellate Court whereby they had prayed for grant of the concession of probation and, therefore, this argument is not available to them. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the perusal of the judgment dated 4.9.2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, it is made out that the learned counsel for the petitioners stated at Bar that he do not want to challenge the judgment of conviction and had prayed for release of the petitioners-accused on probation. Statements of accused-petitioners were also recorded whereby they admitted their guilt and stated that they do not want to challenge the judgment of conviction and prayed for grant of concession under the Probation of Offenders Act. Keeping in view the prayer made by the accused-petitioners, Criminal Revision No.2289 of 2002 -5- the learned Sessions Judge granted the concession of probation to them. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the order of sentence was modified to the extent that the accused-petitioners shall be released on probation for six months on their executing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one surety of the like amount, and during the period of probation, they would maintain good behaviour. The fine imposed by the learned trial Court was converted into costs of proceedings. The accused- petitioners were further burdened with payment of Rs.1,000/- each payable to the injured as compensation in equal share. In compliance with the judgment of the learned Appellate Court, Rs.1,000/- were deposited by each of the accused-petitioners. Probation bonds were furnished, accepted and attested by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is made out from the record that the statements of the petitioners were recorded by the learned Sessions Court to the effect that they be granted the concession of probation which find support from the statement of their counsel as reflected in para 9 of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court, that he do not want to challenge the judgment of conviction and prayed for release of the petitioners on probation. Apart from the bald averments, there is nothing on record to show that the learned Appellate Court was moved by any other consideration other than the statement of the counsel for the petitioners and the statement of the accused-petitioners themselves to release them after giving concession of probation. Not only this, a sum of Rs.1,000/-, as directed by the learned Appellate Court as compensation, was deposited by each of the petitioners, probation bonds were also furnished by the Criminal Revision No.2289 of 2002 -6- petitioners, which were duly accepted and attested by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) November 12, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No