Crl. Revision No. 696 of 2010(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 696 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:July 15, 2010 Bharat Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The accused-respondents No. 2 and 3 were tried for the offences under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, and were convicted for those offences and were sentenced as under:- For offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. For offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5500/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Crl. Revision No. 696 of 2010(O&M) -2- They preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence in which the order of sentence was set aside and they were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct. The present petition has been preferred by Bharat Singh, complainant, against the order passed in the appeal releasing the accused on probation of good conduct. The complainant was injured in the occurrence, disclosed in FIR No. 318 dated 18.12.1998 registered under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station, Pundri. As per the prosecution version, the complainant had purchased one acre of land from Smt. Kaushlaya in the names of his two sons; namely, Subhash and Om Parkash and they were coming in possession since the date of purchase. Before the land was so purchased, Harkesh-respondent No. 2 was coming in possession thereof and on that ground was nourishing a grudge against the complainant. On 17.12.1998, that land was being demarcated in the presence of the complainant. In the meanwhile, Harkesh-respondent No. 2, armed with gandasi and Rajbir-respondent No. 3 armed with Kulhari(axe) appeared on the scene and they were accompanied by another person, who raised a lalkara challenging the complainant to face the consequences for purchasing the land. Thereafter, Harkesh gave a blow with his gandasi on the head of the complainant whereas Rajbir gave a blow with the help of axe on his right shoulder. The second blow was given by Harkesh with gandasi on his left arm. After the occurrence, the complainant was removed to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, where he was medically examined by Dr. R.K.Grover, who found three injuries on his person and after the Radiological examination, the injury on the right shoulder was declared as Crl. Revision No. 696 of 2010(O&M) -3- grievous. The statement of the complainant regarding this occurrence was recorded in the hospital and on the basis thereof, the FIR was registered. During the investigation, these respondents were arrested and the weapons of offence were recovered from their possession. After the completion thereof, the challan was presented before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, who charged them for the offences under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Suresh PW-1, Bharat Singh, PW-2, Bhaiya Ram HC PW-3, Dr. R.K.Grover PW-4, Dr. Mahesh Parkash PW-5 and Kashmir Singh ASI PW-6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the respondents were examined and their statements were recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C.. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their innocence and false implication. They were called upon to enter on the defence. They produced copies of Khasra Girdawaris from 1991 to 1996 in their defence. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and after hearing learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel for the respondents, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class convicted and sentenced the respondents. They preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was allowed so far the sentence is concerned and they were ordered to be released on probation on their executing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and pay compensation Crl. Revision No. 696 of 2010(O&M) -4- @ Rs. 5000/- each, in additional to the fine which had already been imposed upon them by the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner -complainant that offence under Section 326 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life and under the provisions of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the respondents could not have been given the benefit of probation and, as such, order passed by the Sessions Judge in the appeal is liable to be set aside. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. There is no specific bar for releasing the convict on probation. in case he is convicted for offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Even in that case, the convict can be released on probation in case he is less than 21 years of age. According to Section 360 Cr.P.C. also, a convict can be released on probation of good conduct even if he is above 21 years of age, but only in case he is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for seven years or less. Certainly, the offence under Section 326 IPC is also punishable with imprisonment for life. However, a number of circumstances weighed with the Appellate Court while passing the order of probation. The respondents were not found to be previous convicts and were facing their protracted trial for 11 years. The injury, which falls under Section 326 IPC, was not found on the vital part of the body of the injured. The FIR pertains to the year 1998. The trial commenced in the year 2001 and the trial court pronounced its judgment on 20.3.2004. The disposal of the appeal took two Crl. Revision No. 696 of 2010(O&M) -5- years. In these circumstances no useful purpose will be served in case the order passed by the Appellate Court, releasing the respondents on probation is reversed, when the modern trend is to reform the accused and to give him an opportunity for that purpose. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 15, 2010 PARAMJIT