Crl. Rev.No.1752 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1752 of 2006 Date of Decision: 23 - 11 - 2011 Satpal and another .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: None for the petitioners. Ms.Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.Ruminderjit Singh, Advocate for Mr.J.B.S.Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed by Satpal and his brother Naresh Kumar sons of Charanji Lal. They were tried along with their co-accused Smt.Kailasho wife of Satpal, Smt.Gita @ Radha wife of Naresh Kumar, Shinda son of Charanji Lal and one Kundan Lal son of Durga Dass in a complaint preferred by respondent No.2 - Bhagat Singh, by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, which vide its judgment dated 15.2.2002 held them guilty of offence under Sections 324/323/148 and 149 IPC. Having convicted the petitioners for the above Crl. Rev.No.1752 of 2006 [2] said offence, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 148 IPC, for offence under Section 324 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, for offence under Section 323/149 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, all the accused filed an appeal. The Appellate Court below acquitted all the accused except petitioners Satpal and Naresh Kumar and reduced the sentence under Section 324 IPC to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, the petitioners were acquitted for offence under Section 148 IPC. For reducing the sentence, the lower Appellate Court has held that since the injury which fell within the ambit of Section 324 IPC was on the little finger of Bhagat Singh, therefore, the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment shall be adequate. A perusal of the charges framed against the petitioners on 5.5.2000 reveals that petitioner Satpal had caused voluntarily hurts to Bhagat Singh by means of a Daat, an instrument of cutting, whereas petitioner Naresh Kumar had caused voluntarily simple injuries to Bhagat Singh. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 14.4.1997 at about 10.30 A.M. in the area of Village Shergarh. As per complainant, the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to him. A perusal of medico legal report Ex.PA reveals that Bhagat Singh had suffered three injuries. Injury No.1 was diffuse swelling 6 cm x 4cm on the lateral aspect of left side of scalp, whereas injury No.2 was a reddish abrasion 1.3 Crl. Rev.No.1752 of 2006 [3] cm x 0.5 cm on the upper part of front of the nose and injury No.3 was an incised wound 4 cm x 0.8 cm on the right little finger. Counsel for the petitioners is not present in Court. Thus, this Court shall proceed to decide the revision petition in terms of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having perused the record, this Court is of the view that there is no material available to disbelieve the injured. There being no contest to the merits of the case, this Court shall consider ground No.8 of the grounds of revision for decision of the revision. Considering the fact that a period of 14 years is going to elapse and the petitioners have only committed offence under Sections 323/324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, I am of the view that this is not a case where the petitioners should be sent behind the bars. Petitioners were taken into custody on 11.8.2006 and were ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 29.8.2006. Hence, the petitioners have undergone about 18 days of actual sentence. It is one of the case where simple injuries have been caused by the petitioners to a co-villager. Counsel for the complainant is not in a position to bring into my notice any fact, from which it could be inferred that the petitioners were previous convict or they have committed any offence after the present occurrence. Taking into consideration a long protracted trial, age of the petitioners and their antecedents, this Court is of the view that an opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioners to reform themselves and tread on the path of rectitude. Hence, it will be in the interest of all, if the petitioners are released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Crl. Rev.No.1752 of 2006 [4] It is accordingly ordered that petitioners be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court that they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. However, sentence of fine qua each of the petitioners is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The amount of fine be deposited within three months from the day the trial Court calls the petitioners to deposit the cost. The amount of fine, aggregate of which comes to Rs.20,000/-, be disbursed to the complainant. In case amount of fine is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to the petitioners and their revision be deemed to have been dismissed. Petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 23, 2011 JUDGE RC