IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1885 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 27, 2011 Gurmit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Gurmit Kaur and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 7.12.2009, convicted the accused- petitioner Gurmit Singh (herein referred as, 'the accused') along with other accused namely, Satwinder Singh, Kapoor Kaur, Anokh Singh, Gurmit Kaur, Geja Singh and Gurmit Singh (non petitioners) under Sections 323/506 read with Section 149 IPC and ordered to release them on probation under the Probation of offenders Act, 1958. However, no proceedings could be initiated against accused Surinder Singh as he was declared as Proclaimed Offender during the pendency of the trial. However, the appellate court vide judgment dated 10.3.2011 dismissed his appeal. In brief, the allegations are that on 8.9.1999, at about 6.00 p.m the complainant Gurmeet Kaur (herein referred as, 'the complainant') along with other family members was present in her house. The petitioner along with other while forming an unlawful assembly, came and trespassed into her field and started cutting the paddy crop. When the complainant, followed by her son Nishan Singh and husband Kirpal Singh, reached the place, where the paddy crop was sown, and tried to stop them, all the accused attacked the complainant with sticks, sotas and datars and caused Crl. Revision No. 1885 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** injuries to her. The complainant raised hue and cry which attracted Gian Chand, Waryam Singh and Bachan Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and the case was investigated. On completion of the investigation charge report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. The accused persons were charged under Sections 307/323/324/354/447/452/599/506/149 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Gurmeet Kaur (PW1), Dr. Pushkar Kumar (PW2), Waryam Singh (PW3), HC Gurmail Singh (PW4) and Kirpal Singh (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. They examined Ashok Kumar (DW1) and Bachan Singh (DW2). The trial resulted into conviction, however, they were ordered to be released on probation. Their appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner formed an unlawful assembly with other accused and in furtherance of their common object, started harvesting the paddy crop belonging to the complainant and when she resisted, the petitioner caused injuries to her with deadly weapons. The witnesses are quite consistent in their statements regarding, time place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken Crl. Revision No. 1885 of 2011 (O&M) -3- *** place. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that keeping in view the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, the trial court has already exercised its judicial discretion while releasing him on probation under the Probation of offenders Act, 1958, therefore, it does not call for any interference. Dismissed. However, order of probation would not effect his service career in any manner. September 26, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge