Crl. Revision No. 184 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 184 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 10, 2011 Daya Rani ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Gargi Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) CRM No. 4227 of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 104 days in filing the petition is condoned. Main Case Daya Rani has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 18.5.2010 and order dated 21.5.2010, by virtue of which respondents No.2 to 5 were convicted under Sections 323 of Indian Penal Code and ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year under the Probation of Offenders Act. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that on 16.11.2002 at about 8 a.m., Satan son of Chandrup was getting his pet dog Crl. Revision No. 184 of 2011 (O&M) 2 urinated at the door of the complainant. When complainant raised objection, Satan became angry and gave a fist blow on her (complainant) nose. Thereafter, Chandrup, his wife and son Kala came there and Kala gave kick blow on her (complainant’s) back. Ganga Devi gave 4-5 blows of broom on her (complainant) head. In the meantime, her (complainant) husband tried to rescue his wife but the accused also caused injuries to him. On raising hue and cry, many persons gathered at the spot and the accused persons fled away. On the basis of aforesaid statement formal FIR was registered. The accused-respondents were arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation challan was presented against the accused. After framing of the charges by the trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-respondents denied all the material allegations, however, they did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, available on the record, convicted the accused respondents under Sections 323 of Indian Penal Code and released them on probation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Admittedly, the learned trial Court found the accused- respondents guilty for causing injuries to the complainant and as such they were convicted under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused are first time offenders. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration that two of the accused are 58 years while one of the accused Sant Ram used to remain ill; another accused Satyawan has recently got married; they are Crl. Revision No. 184 of 2011 (O&M) 3 facing trial for the last more than seven years released the accused- respondents on probation for a period of one year. Admittedly, the case was registered against the accused- respondents in the year 2002 and they have undergone mental agony and stress on account of pendency of this case for the last more than seven years, therefore, in the opinion of this Court the learned trial Court was justified in releasing the accused-respondents on probation for a period of one year and as such the impugned order releasing the accused-respondents on probation for a period of one year cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous in any manner. Empassing it would not be out of place to mention here that the accused-respondents have also been directed to pay ` 5000/- as compensation to the complainant injured Daya Rani. No interference is called for. Revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge May 10, 2011 Anand Crl. Revision No. 184 of 2011 (O&M) 4 In view of this, the order of the learned trial Court releasing the accused- respondents on probation for a period of one year cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous in any manner.