IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.208 of 2002 Date of decision : March 23, 2009 Sajjan Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) This Revision Petition is directed against the judgments of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, whereby the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court of offence, punishable under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and his conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Sessions Court. 2. Facts which led to the prosecution, conviction and sentence of the petitioner, as aforesaid, are that on 30th November, 1995, the petitioner, while passing through the courtyard of PW-5 Sikru Ram with a pet dog, failed to take such order with the said pet dog as was sufficient to guard against the probable danger to human life and the said dog got unleashed and bit said PW-5 Sikru Ram, causing three simple bleeding wounds. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Matter was reported to the police. Police investigated the case and filed the report against the petitioner. Petitioner took the plea that he had been falsely implicated, because civil litigation had been going on between the parties. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 5. There does not seem any reason to disbelieve the version of PW-5 Sikru Ram, as corroborated by his son PW-2 Filli Ram and his grandson PW-2 Gian Chand. Medico legal evidence, in the form of the testimony of PW-1 Dr. Indu Kaushal and the medico legal certificate Ex. PW-1/A also corroborates the testimony of the injured. Therefore, I do not see any scope for interfering with the conviction of the petitioner. 6. However, taking into account the fact that the matter is very old and the petitioner was a young man of only 20 at the relevant time, I feel that this is a fit case where benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, should be extended. Consequently, the sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is ordered to be released, after due admonition, but he shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-, by way of compensation to PW-5 Sikru Ram. The amount of fine of Rs.1,000/-, which is stated to have been deposited by the petitioner, shall not be refunded to him but adjusted against the amount of compensation. For depositing the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/-, four weeks time is given to the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. March 23, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J