Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1723 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 1, 2010 Krishan and another ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Jatinder Nara, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. SABINA, J. The petitioners were tried for an offence under Sections 148,323,326,452,149 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 15.9.2007 convicted the petitioners for an offence under Sections 148,323,452,149 IPC. Petitioners were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. Vide order dated 18.9.2007 petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 148 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323/149 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 452/149 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same petitioners filed an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (O&M) 2 24.12.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against their conviction. However, the appeal filed by the petitioners qua the sentence part was allowed. The Magistrate was directed to pass the order qua sentence after considering the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Thereafter the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.1.2009 ordered that the petitioners be released on probation for a period of one year subject to their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the present revision petition. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- “Brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.1999 on receiving a telephone from Police Station, City Jind regarding admission of Santosh wife of Raj Kumar, Sher Singh son Bhagwana in the hospital, ASI Satya Narain alongwith other police officials went to General Hospital, Jind. Santosh was declared fit to make the statement whereas Sher Singh was referred to PGI, Rohtak. Rajbir was present near Santosh. He got his statement recorded o the effect that on 14.10.1999 at about 8.30 P.M. Ved son of Lilu Ram after consumer liquor started abusing them. He asked him to go to his house as the daughters and daughters-in-law were sitting there. Rajesh son of Ved also asked him to not to abuse. Ramkesh son of Sube Singh took Rajesh to his house and told him why he was asking his father not to abuse. Ved continued to abuse in the house of Chander Singh son of Munni Ram. He, Sher Singh son of Bhagwana, Chander son of Munni Ram and Nafa son of Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Telu Ram were hubbling bubbling. Meanwhile, Krishan son of Kiru ram carrying a lathi, Wazir son of Kiru Ram carrying a gandasi, Dilbag son of Sube Sigh carrying a gandasi, Ramkesh son of Sube Singh carrying a lathi, Phool son of Hira carrying a gandasi, Kitaba son of Hira carrying a lathi, Norang son of Udey and Birbhan son of Udey carrying lathies came there. Ramkesh raised lalkara. Wazir gave gandasi blow to Sher Singh which hit his nose. Krishan gave a lathi blow which hit the bag of Sher Singh. Dilbag son of Sube Singh gave gandasi blow on his head. Ramkesh gave lathi blow to him. Santosh wife of Ram Kumar came there on hearing hue and cry. Phool son of Hira gave gandasi blow from back side on her stomach. Kitaba and Norang gave lathi blow on Santosh. Birbhan gave lathi blow to him. Ramkesh also gave lathi blow to him. They cried for help on which Chander son of Munni Ram and Nafa son of Telu came and rescued them. Accused ran away alongwith their respective weapons. About 20/25 days before Dilbag etc. had a quarrel with Raj Singh in which a compromise took place. Due to this enmity they sent Ved under the influence of liquor there knowingly. He, Santosh, and Sher Singh etc. were taken to Civil Hospital, Jind in a three-wheeler. An action be taken against them. On this statement, FIR was lodged. The investigation was set into motion. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested in this case. After completing all other usual acts of Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (O&M) 4 investigation and interrogation challan was prepared and submitted in the court for trial.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Learned Appellate Court has held as under :- “From a perusal of the testimony of Rajbir PW1, Sher Singh PW2, Smt. Santosh PW3 and Chander Singh PW4, it reveals that the presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence armed with lathies and gandasies is duly proved. These witnesses have fully deposed about the presence of the accused persons and the weapons which they were carrying. Moreover, subsequently during the investigations lathies and gandasies were recovered vide recovery memos Ex.PC and Ex.PE and sketch of gandasi Ex.PF on the basis of the disclosure statements Ex.PB and Ex.PD suffered by the accused persons during the investigations of the case. Thus, learned Magistrate has rightly held guilty the accused persons/appellants for the commission of offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. It is duly proved on record that occurrence had taken place inside the house as is evident from the site plan Ex.PW9/C. Furthermore, from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses it is duly proved that the accused persons had inflicted injuries to the injured in prosecution of their common object inside the house. Thus, the Magistrate has rightly held the accused persons guilty for committing the offence punishable under Sections 452 read Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (O&M) 5 with Section 149 IPC.” “So far as the offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, the testimony of the aforesaid injured persons including the eye witness goes a long way to prove that they had sustained injuries. There is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the complainant and other had not received injuries or that the injuries were self inflicted. Although, there were minor contradictions in the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses but as has rightly been observed by the Magistrate that they do not go to the root of the case as the same were bound to occur due to long gap of time between the occurrence and deposition of the witnesses in the court.” Both the Courts' below have gone through the evidence on record and the reasons given by the Courts' below while ordering the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148,323,452,149 IPC are sound reasons and hence call for no interference. The eye witnesses had duly deposed qua the injuries inflicted by the accused persons on the complainant party. The weapons used at the time of offence were recovered from the accused during investigation. The learned trial Court on remand of the case while dealing with the question as to whether the petitioners were entitled to be released on probation in para 4 of the order dated 16.1.2009 has held as under :- “The purpose of punishment is not always deterrent but where the convicts faced agony of long trial and coupled with the fact that they are not previous convicts, then it is valid ground for releasing them on probation. It is not always Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (O&M) 6 necessary to sent the convicts behind bar to mingle with the hardcore criminals, so as to further aggravate conditions for themselves. The purpose of sentence is also reformative in nature. There must be some strong reasons for declining the benefit of probation. No mitigating circumstances have been stated at bar that the convicts are not entitled for probation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the antecedents of the convicts and nature of the offence, in the considered opinion of the court, there are mitigating circumstances, which exist on the file for extending the beneficial provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. by releasing them on probation for a period of one year subject to furnishing probation bond in the sum of rs.10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount, without supervision. Requite probation bonds furnished, which are accepted and attested. File be consigned to the record room.” The learned trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly ordered that the petitioners be released on probation. Hence, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) November 1, 2010 JUDGE Anand