Criminal Revision No. 1982 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1982 of 2002 Date of Decision: 11.5.2010 Rajinder Pal …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Rajinder Pal, Petitioner, in person, assisted by Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Rajinder Pal, who was nominated as an accused along with Mohan Lal and Hukam Chand, in case FIR No. 113 dated 21.4.1999, registered at Police Station Barnala, under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, vide its judgment dated 6.9.2001, held the petitioner and his co-accused namely Mohan Lal and Hukam Chand guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, he along with his co- accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, for the offence under Section 323 IPC. They were Criminal Revision No. 1982 of 2002 2 also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two days, for the offence under Section 325 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner along with his co-accused have preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 25.9.2002, acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC. However, his conviction for the offence under Section 325 IPC was upheld but the sentence, awarded thereunder, was reduced from three years to 1½ years. Mohan Lal and Hukam Chand, co-accused of the petitioner, were acquitted of the charges. Hence, he has filed the present revision petition. FIR, in the present case, was lodged on the basis of the statement Ex.PE, made by PW.3 injured Jaswant Singh to PW.5 Sewa Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, wherein he stated that he was working as Goldsmith and on 20.4.1999, he along with Gurdarshan Singh had come to the Courts at Barnala. The sister of Gurdarshan Singh was married with the petitioner and a dowry case was registered against him. Jaswant Singh, complainant, was to be examined as a prosecution witness on 20.4.1999 but his statement could not be recorded and the next date fixed was 7.6.1999. It was further stated that on the same day at about 1.00 P.M., on the raising of lalkara, Mohan Lal caught hold of the arms of Jaswant Singh and the petitioner gave fist blows to Jaswant Singh, due to which he lost his tooth. In the FIR, it was stated that the Criminal Revision No. 1982 of 2002 3 complainant received injuries on his lips and right shoulder. The above said FIR was investigated and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. On 21.4.1999, PW.3 Jaswant Singh was medicolegally examined by PW.12 Dr. S.K. Singla, who found the following injuries:- “1. Right lower canine tooth was missing., There was fresh socket with clotted blood present. The margins of the socket were raw. There was swelling and laceration of the mucosa of the lower lip. Injury was referred to dental surgeon for opinion. 2. There was reddish bruise 4 cm x 4 cm on the left side of the face just below the left eye. X-ray was advised. 3. There was complaint of pain on the sides of the lower chest”. Injury No.3 was complaint of pain and injury No.1, as the tooth was dislocated, was declared as grievous and the same falls within the ambit of Section 325 IPC. PW.3 Jaswant Singh reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. His testimony was duly corroborated by PW.4 Gurdarshan Singh. PW.5 Sewa Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, was the Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed regarding various facets of the investigation. Thereafter, the statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating evidence and Criminal Revision No. 1982 of 2002 4 pleaded false implication. In defence, Gurnaib Singh, who was working as a Conductor with Rayia Bus Services, was examined as DW.1. He stated that he has not seen the petitioner causing any injury to the complainant. Petitioner Rajinder Pal Singh, who is present in this Court, has stated that he is a Government Officer and is employed as an Ophthalmic Officer in Civil Hospital at Jaiton. He further stated that he has not committed any offence before the registration of the present case and thereafter. He is leading a life of an honest and a peaceful citizen. He is a sole bread winner of his family and his parents are dependent upon him. He prayed that he should be dealt with leniently. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was empty handed. He gave fist blows due to which the tooth of Jaswant Singh, complainant, was dislocated. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1999 and a period of 11 years is going to elapse. Therefore, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the appellant to reform himself and lead a path of rectitude. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, recorded by both the Courts below, is upheld. However, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “1958 Act”), on his furnishing personal bond and one surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court. During the period of probation, he will keep the peace and be of a good behaviour. Otherwise, he will come and receive sentence as and when required by the Court and benefit of probation shall not Criminal Revision No. 1982 of 2002 5 accrue to him. Needless to say that the conviction will not be considered as disqualification under Section 12 of the 1958 Act. With the observations made above, the present appeal is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 11, 2010 “DK”