Criminal Revision No.2495 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Criminal Revision No.2495 of 2003 Date of Decision 04.10.2010 Bali Ram and others ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent (ii) Criminal Revision No.2497 of 2003 Satnam Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent (iii) Criminal Revision No.100 of 2004 Ram Lal ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, and Mr.Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This judgment shall dispose of three connected Criminal Revision Nos.2495 and 2497 of 2003 and 100 of 2004. Assailed in aforesaid petitions is the judgment dated 06.12.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the Criminal Revision No.2495 of 2003 2 appeals of the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated 27.07.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, convicting and sentencing them under Sections 148, 323, 325, 447, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. Allegations against the petitioners are that on 27.11.1997, they while armed with lathies (sticks) and dang (bamboo), caused injuries to complainant Sardara Ram and his brother Nanna Ram. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, some leniency on the quantum of sentence has been sought. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The petitioners have been duly identified. The medical evidence fits in with the ocular version. No such illegality much less irregularity was found or detected which may result into miscarriage of justice, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Having heard on the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that both the injured Sardara Ram suffered five injuries and Nanna Ram suffered six injuries. Out of the injuries suffered by Nanna Ram, two injuries were found to be grievous which are on the non-vital part of the body. The occurrence in the case took place on 27.11.1997 and the petitioners have suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings since then. Admittedly, they are the first offenders. No such bad antecedents have been brought on record which may be sufficient to dub them as habitual offenders. The petitioners are also ready to compensate the Criminal Revision No.2495 of 2003 3 injured. In order to buttress their arguments of extending them on probation, learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the judgment delivered in case Sat Parkash and others versus State of Haryana 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 924 wherein it was observed as under:- “Coming to the question of sentence, it may be noticed that occurrence had taken place in the year 1993. Both the parties i.e. the accused and the complainant belong to the same village. With the passage of time, the things must have cooled down. The ever hanging sword of conviction and sentence upon the heads of the petitioners must also have yielded result. There is no material available to show that any of the petitioners have ever indulged in any crime during the last thirteen years. None of them is a previous convict. They remained in jail for a considerable period of time. They were taken into custody on 23.07.2004 when their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.” xxx xxx xxx xxx “This Court feels that the petitioners deserve to be extended the benefit of probation instead of sending them back to the jail for undergoing the remaining sentences. However, while doing so, the Court may like to direct the petitioners to pay adequate compensation to Hukam Chand complainant.” In the instant case also the petitioners are the first offenders. They have undergone some part of the sentence. They are co-villagers and to send them to jail again would not serve the purpose. Similarly in cases Maya Ram and others versus State of Haryana 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 596; Ram Lal @ Ramu versus State of Punjab 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 188; Balbir Singh versus State of Punjab 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 204, this High Court had released the accused on probation when they were convicted under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. Criminal Revision No.2495 of 2003 4 In view of aforesaid discussion, the aforesaid petitions are dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the petitioners be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, they are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to both the injured namely Sardara Ram and Nanna Ram which would be shared by both the injured equally, within three months from today, failing which, they would serve remaining part of sentence. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 04.10.2010 mamta-II