IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 353 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.3.2010 Pala Singh and another ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl.AG, Punjab. **** ORDER Although this revision petition was admitted on 8.2.2010 and notice in Crl.Misc.No. 6520 of 2009 for suspension of sentence was issued for today, but on request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the main petition has been taken up for hearing. The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 21.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (adhoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa, vide which the appeal filed by petitioners Pala Singh and Raj Singh against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.4.2008 passed by Addl. CJM, Mansa, was dismissed except with the modification that sentence of the petitioners was reduced from six months to three months for offence under Sections 323 and 323/34 IPC. Initially, six persons were charge-sheeted for causing injuries to Satya Devi PW-5, Pargat Singh PW-2 and Binder Singh PW-3 and both Pargat Singh and Binder Singh did not support the case of the prosecution Crl.Revision No. 353 of 2009 [2] by stating that the accused present in Court were not the persons who caused injuries to them as well as to complainant Satya Devi. Out of remaining four co-accused, Leela Singh and Angrej Kaur were granted the benefit of probation of Offenders Act and Ravi Singh and Darshan Singh were acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the case of the present petitioners is also at par with co-accused who have been granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and this benefit has been denied to the present petitioners considering them to be younger in age. They were granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act on the basis of age and poor health of the convicts, whereas there is nothing on the record to show poor health of the petitioners. Learned counsel further argued that the doctor who conducted x-ray examination was not examined to prove the x-ray as well as nature of injures suffered by the prosecution witnesses and there is no evidence on record to prove injuries No.7 and 12 which were declared grievous in nature. Without examination of the medical expert who carried out x-ray examination, there is no other evidence to establish the charge framed under Section 325 IPC and all the injuries were the result of blunt weapon and as per opinion of Dr. Anita Bansal PW-4, the injuries were simple in nature and at the most it can be a case under Section 323 IPC. Moreover, the petitioners are ready to pay some reasonable compensation if their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Mr.Sra, Learned counsel for the State, argues that co-accused Leela Singh and Angrej Kaur were granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act keeping in view their age and ill health and Crl.Revision No. 353 of 2009 [3] the petitioners were not entitled to this benefit as case of the present petitioners cannot be equated at par with accused Leela Singh and Angrej Kaur. Injuries on the person of the injured were subjected to x-ray examination and injuries No. 7 and 12 were found grievous in nature and the prosecution proved its case on the basis of statements of the witnesses as well as the statement of the doctor. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on record. As per case of the prosecution, complainant Satya Devi was given injuries by four persons. The trial Court convicted Pala Singh under Section 325 IPC and other accused Leela, Raj Singh and Angrej Kaur were also convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC for causing grievous injuries to the complainant. Accused Leela and Angrej Kaur, Pala Singh and Raj Singh were also held liable for causing injuries under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Ravi Singh and Darshan Singh were acquitted by the trial Court. Accused Leela Singh and Angrej Kaur were given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. This benefit has been denied to the present petitioners only on the ground that it would have adverse impact on the society at large . The finding recorded by the trial Court does not appear to be reasonable as the case of the present petitioners is at par with other co-accused who have been granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Moreover, the present petitioners are in custody for the last more than 1-1/2 months and have faced the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 7 years and are first offenders. Under these circumstances, I find it a fit case where Crl.Revision No. 353 of 2009 [4] benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the present petitioners also. Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Sections 325/323/34 IPC, it is directed that the present petitioners shall be released on probation for a period of one year under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, with the condition that they would keep peace and be of good behavior and would appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so during this period. They are also directed to pay Rs. 15000/- each as compensation to be paid equally to the three injured namely, Satya Devi, Pargat Singh and Binder Singh. The petitioners will deposit the aforesaid amount and furnish personal bonds in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the petitioners would undergo the remaining part of the sentence. With above modification, the revision petition is disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 10, 2010. raghav