CRR No. 2500 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRR No. 2500 of 2010 Roshan Lal ........ Petitioner Versus Sunda Ram and others ........ Respondents 2. CRR No. 2617 of 2010 Roshan Lal ........ Petitioner Versus Jagdish and others ........ Respondents Date of decision: 17.5.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Tapan Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. JORA SINGH, J. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of two Criminal Revisions No. 2500 and 2617 of 2010, preferred by Roshan Lal, to impugn two judgments dated 13.4.2010, passed separately by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Criminal Appeals No. 10 and 11 of 2006, arising out of FIR No. 328 dated 9.12.1995, registered under Sections 323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jatusana. CRR No. 2500 of 2010 -2- By the said judgment, both appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 5.8.2006 and order of sentence dated 7.8.2006, rendered by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli, District Rewari, were dismissed but the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation. Prosecution story, in brief, is that a VT message was received regarding admission of Roshan Lal and Sarli Devi, in the hospital. On receipt of message, police party of Police Station City, Rewari, had gone to Civil Hospital, Rewari. After getting opinion from the doctor regarding fitness of the injured, statement of Roshan Lal- injured, Ex. PA was recorded. As per complainant, land measuring 9 kanals was purchased by him from Nihal on 6.7.1995, but possession was not given. On 3.12.1995, he along with his sons Ramphal and Krishan, was digging well in the land in dispute. In the meantime, Sunda Ram, Ramphal, Bodhan and Jagdish, armed with lathies came there. Sunda Ram, gave lathi blow to Krishan. After that accused gave beatings to his sons Ramphal and Krishan. Ram Kishore S/o Sanwal, Nihal Singh S/o Jagdish, Dholia, Pawan and Lado W/o Jagdish also came at the spot. Complainant along with his wife was present near the well then Bodhan and Jagdish, caused injuries to him and his wife. Occurrence was witnessed by Virender Singh. In view of the statement of Roshan Lal, Ex. PA, formal FIR was recorded. Accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was predsented in Court. Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. CRR No. 2500 of 2010 -3- In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses namely, PW-1 Roshan Lal, PW-2 ASI Shiv Karan, PW-3 Dr. H.R. Yadav, PW-4 HC Ravinder Singh, PW-5 Krishan, PW-6 Ramphal, PW-7 Sara, PW-8 Dr. M.K. Garg and PW-9 Dr. V.K. Yadav. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of respondents-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. In defence, DW-1 Dr. Vinod Kumar Yadav and DW-2 Dr. M.K. Garg were examined. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, respondents-accused were convicted under Sections 323/325/34 IPC and were sentenced as under: 1. Under Section 323 IPC To undergo RI for six months each. 2. Under Section 325 IPC To undergo RI for a period of two months each and to pay a fine of ` 400/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month each. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment of conviction dated 5.8.2006 and order of sentence dated 7.8.2006, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli, separate appeals were filed by the respondents-accused i.e. Criminal Appeals No. 10 and 11 of 2006. CRR No. 2500 of 2010 -4- Both the appeals were dismissed vide the impugned judgments dated 13.4.2010, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari but the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents- accused were six in number and were armed with dangs. Injuries were caused to four persons. 24 injuries were noticed but compensation awarded at the rate of ` 8500/- per head is not adequate. Roshan Lal- petitioner on receipt of injuries is not keeping good health. After receipt of injuries, Roshan Lal, remained admitted in the hospital for about 10 days and later on he was getting treatment from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Roshan Lal-petitioner has become physically unfit to carry out properly even his daily routines. Impugned judgment be set aside keeping in view the nature of injuries and gravity of offence. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be not reasonable one. After investigation, for causing injuries to Roshan Lal and others, 6 persons were challaned namely Sunda Ram, Ramphal, Bodhan, Jagdish, Nihal and Lado. Perusal of the file further shows that injuries were also noticed on the person of respondents/accused party. Trial Court opined that respondents-accused were aggressors because they were more in number at the time of incident. Secondly, complainant party suffered more injuries than the respondents-accused but ultimately conviction of the respondents-accused was maintained by the Ist Appellate Court but they were released on probation. CRR No. 2500 of 2010 -5- Respondents-accused are the first offenders. Jagdish was 66 years old, Lado Devi, was 60 years old, Ramphal, was 26 years old, Nihal was 33 years old, Sunda Ram was 48 years old whereas Bodhan was 42 years old. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, respondents- accused were directed to deposit ` 8500/- per head in addition to the fine already deposited payable as compensation to the injured. ` 45,000/- was ordered to paid to Roshan Lal and ` 6000/- to his wife Sarli Devi. Before the Ist Appellate Court, petitioner had appeared and made statement to the effect that he has no objection if respondents- accused are ordered to be released on probation. Keeping in view the statement of Roshan Lal-injured, respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation and compensation at the rate of ` 8500/- per head was deposited payable as compensation to the injured. Both the parties had received injuries but respondents- accused were declared to be the aggressors. Earlier to the occurrence, no dispute amongst the parties. Presence occurrence pertains to the year 1995 and after the present occurrence no further litigation amongst the parties, so, I am of the opinion that keeping in view the nature of offence and injuries suffered by both the parties and age of the respondents-accused, Ist Appellate Court, rightly exercised its discretion by releasing the accused on probation. No reason to interfere. For the reasons recorded above, CRR Nos. 2500 and 2617 of 2010, without merits are dismissed. May 17, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE