IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 666 of 2009 Date of decision: 12th May, 2009 Ramesh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Lamba, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Ramesh son of Murari Lal. He was tried along with his wife Smt.Sharda and Smt.Mewa Devi wife of Musadi Lal in case FIR No. 173 dated 22.10.1999 registered at Police Station Kosli under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC. The trial Court held petitioner guilty for offences under Section 323 and 325 IPC, whereas co-accused Smt.Sharda and Smt.Mewa Devi were held guilty for offence under Section 323 IPC. The trial Court had convicted and sentenced Ramesh, Smt.Sharda and Smt.Mewa Devi under Section 323 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, Ramesh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 325 IPC, in default of payment of fine Ramesh had to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Criminal Revision No. 666 of 2009 Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed by Ramesh and Smt.Sharda. It is stated that accused No.3 Smt.Mewa Devi had not assailed her conviction. The appellate Court released Smt.Sharda on probation. The appeal of petitioner was dismissed and his conviction and sentence was maintained. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 12th September, 1999. On the statement made by Parbhati Lal complainant, statement was recorded in DDR No.6 dated 12th September, 1999. The DDR has been exhibited as Ex.PW-5/B. It is stated that a joint tubewell was owned by complainant injured Parbhati Lal and his three brothers Musadi Lal, Ram Narayan and Murari Lal. Present petitioner Ramesh is son of Murari Lal, whereas third accused Smt.Mewa Devi is wife of Musadi Lal. Ramesh used to stay at the tubewell, whereas other owners of the tubewell used to stay in the village. On the day of occurrence, Ramesh was operating tubewell on and off when he was restrained by the complainant, due to this grudge, petitioner along with his wife Smt.Sharda had caused injuries to the complainant. It is stated that Ramesh had picked up a hammer and had given injury on the claw of left foot of Parbhati Lal. FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) was submitted and thereafter, petitioner was charged. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Parbhati Lal, injured appeared as PW-1. His wife Gyarsi Devi appeared as PW-2. Inspector Suraj Bhan PW-3, Gian Chand ASI PW-4 and Constable Suresh Kumar PW-5 are the police witnesses, who, in discharge of their duty, have advanced the case of investigation. PW-6, Dr.Ram Avtar Gupta had radio-logically examined Parbhati Lal and he 2 Criminal Revision No. 666 of 2009 had found fracture of left second metatarsal bone. PW-7 Dr.V.R.V. Singh had proved medico-legal report, Ex.PW-7/A of injured Parbhati Lal. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not be in a position to assail conviction of the petitioner. However, he prays to this Court that taking into consideration protracted trial, petitioner should be leniently dealt with. Either the sentence awarded to the petitioner should be adequately reduced or petitioner be released on probation. It has further been stated that it is a case of version and cross-version. Petitioner has filed complaint against Parbhati Lal, which is pending before the Court of concerned Area Magistrate and Parbhati Lal has been summoned to stand trial. Counsel has further submitted that petitioner is only bread winner of his family and is having three minor children. Counsel has further stated that father of the petitioner was a joint account holder of the tubewell. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 28th February, 2009 and has undergone two and half months of actual sentence. Occurrence, in the present case pertains to 12th September, 1999. In the present case, occurrence has ensued when petitioner had plied the tubewell and he was restrained by Parbhati Lal. Counsel has further submitted that injured is a close relative of the petitioner. Petitioner has not committed any offence before the registration of present case and thereafter. Taking into consideration protracted trial and conduct of the petitioner and the fact that parties are closely related, I am of the view that ends of justice will be fully met, in case petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year under Section 325 IPC. Petitioner shall furnish requisite bonds before the trial Court that he shall 3 Criminal Revision No. 666 of 2009 maintain good conduct and peace for a period of one year. However, cost of litigation is assessed as Rs.1000/-. Petitioner shall also deposit Rs.30,000/- as compensation. On deposit of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation, the amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be disbursed to the injured Parbhati Lal as compensation. In case amount of compensation and cost of litigation is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to the petitioner. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 12, 2009 rps 4