Crl. Revision No.1366 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1366 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.12.2010 Rattan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Rattan Singh complainant against the order dated 25th January, 2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 5th February, 2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, whereby he enlarged respondents No.2 to 7 on probation, for commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for a period of one month on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Brief factual matrix of the case is that a complaint was lodged by one Rattan Singh to the police on 4th November, 1999 alleging that when he was standing in the street in front of his house, Raje @ Raj Kumar came there and asked him as to why a false complaint of theft of electricity was made against him. The complainant Crl. Revision No.1366 of 2010 2 replied that he has not made any false complaint and would make if theft of electric energy committed by them in future. On this, Raje abused the complainant and threatened him to teach a lesson. Raje went back to his house and after some time again came back holding a Jelly in his hand. After him Kudrat holding a Jelly, Sahab Singh holding a Lathi and Moji Ram holding a Danda reached there one by one. Their wives and two daughters also reached there with Lathis in their hands. Sahab Singh inflicted rod blow on the head of the complainant and other accused/ respondents also inflicted injuries to him, as a result he fell down on the ground. In the meantime, Vidya Devi wife of the complainant came there from inside the house and tried to rescue him, Raje and others inflicted Jelly blows towards Lathi side on the head of Vidya Devi. They raised noise and on hearing the same, Krishna Devi and Sarli Devi came at the spot and rescued them from the clutches of the accused and accused ran way from the spot along with their respective weapons. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The respondents No.2 to 7 were later charged under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution led as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded false implication. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar held the respondents No.2 to 7 guilty for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. However, keeping in view the fact that the accused had faced protracted Crl. Revision No.1366 of 2010 3 trial and first offender, they were enlarged on probation for a period of one month on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and they were directed to keep peace in the society. State of Haryana preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar. The said appeal was dismissed wherein the appellate court upheld the conviction of the respondents as well as the order enlarging them on probation. Aggrieved, the complainant Rattan Singh has preferred the present revision petition before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the nature of injuries caused in the occurrence and same having been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution, the trial court as well as the appellate court committed grave error while releasing the respondents No.2 to 7 on probation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that on the basis of evidence led before the court it was found that respondents No.2 to 7 were guilty of commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. However, keeping in view the fact that the respondents had faced protracted trial for a period of seven years and were first offenders, the trial court decided to enlarge them on probation after furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. The said order was upheld by the appellate court. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. It is evident that Crl. Revision No.1366 of 2010 4 in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court decided to enlarge the accused on probation. The order was upheld by the appellate court. I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment delivered by the court below. The petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 21, 2010 'rajpal'