IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 524 of 2000 Date of Decision : February 09, 2010 Ram Parshad and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioners were held guilty and convicted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala for offences under Sections 323,148, 149 and 506 IPC. However, instead of being sentenced, they were released on probation on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for a period of one year with one surety in the like amount. The petitioners were further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each as compensation to the complainant Om Parkash and Rs.100/- each as costs of proceedings. Aggrieved of their conviction, the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on 12.1.2000. They are now before this Court by way of revision filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the prosecution, the petitioners had assaulted Om Parkash-complainant on 2.6.1993 at about 6.00 A.M. when he was going to the fields to ease himself. The petitioners also threatened to kill him as and when they would find a suitable opportunity. Criminal Revision No. 524 of 2000 The statement of complainant-Om Parkash, who had appeared before the trial Court as PW1, was fully supported by the medical evidence, which came on record by way of the statement of Dr. Ashwani Kashyap PW3. Moreover, Gainda Ram-PW2, who was attracted to the spot on hearing the cries for help raised by the complainant, supported the case of the prosecution to the extent of the complainant being attacked and receiving injuries. However, he did not name any of the petitioners as accused. That by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case. The petitioners when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication but they did not examine any evidence in support of their plea. For the aforementioned reasons, no case is made out for interference in the conviction of the petitioners. All the petitioners, who were granted the benefit of probation in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment on 4.5.1998, were directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for a period of one year. They had complied with the directions issued by the trial Court by furnishing their personal bonds. The period for which the bonds were furnished has already expired. Moreover, all the petitioners have also paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- each as compensation to complainant-Om Parkash, besides, depositing Rs.100/- each as costs of proceedings. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) February 09, 2010 JUDGE satish -2-