IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 926 of 2002 Date of decision: 16.02.2009 Gurpal Singh ......Petitioner versus Veer Bhan and others .....Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J Vide judgment dated 17.01.2002, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat while acquitting the respondents under Section 307 IPC, had convicted them under Sections 325, 324, 323, 427, 506, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and had ordered to release them on probation for a period of one year on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2000/- with one surety of the like amount. No appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 307 IPC. However, the complainant has come up in revision. On scrutiny of the records, it is evident from the evidence led by the prosecution that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, much less the prosecution witnesses have not identified all the accused in the dock properly. No injury was found to be dangerous to life. The doctor did not form specific opinion, as to whether the injuries on the persons of Gurpal Singh, Rama and Ramesh were caused with the fire arm and he has rather stated the injuries could be the result of blunt weapons. In these circumstances, the trial court was right in forming an opinion that no offence against the respondents under Section 307 CRR No. 926 of 2002 [2] IPC was made out. Similarly, the cause of granting the respondents benefit of the probation was mainly that most of the convicts were elderly persons and were above 50-60 years of age and were not previous convicts . Under these circumstances, no interference in the judicial discretion exercised by the trial court in awarding probation to the respondents is called for. Resultantly the petition is dismissed. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 16th February, 2009 SKaushik