In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1830 of 2003 Date of decision: March 05, 2009 Lilu Ram and another ... Petitioners vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Mr. Rajat Goyal, AAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 16.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated 27/29.8.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, convicting and sentencing the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 323 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each under Section 325 IPC. The brief resume of facts is that on the intervening night of ½.10.1996, complainant Megh Raj and Raj Kumar had gone to irrigate their field and at about 4.30/5.00 a.m. the petitioners Lilu Ram and Sarwan armed with gandasi and lathi respectively arrived there. They exhorted that they would not allow the complainant to irrigate the fields. Lilu Ram caught hold the complainant and Sarwan inflicted lathi blow on his left hand, right hand thumb and right leg. Raj Kumar tried to rescue him but he was also beaten by the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were charged for the offence under Crl. Revision No. 1830 of 2003 -2- *** Sections 323/325/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. R.C. Goyal (PW1), Megh Raj complainant (PW2), ASI Om Parkash (PW3), Raj Kumar injured (PW4) and Dr. Suraj Kamboj (PW5). In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied the allegation and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by them also failed. Heard. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for taking some lenient view on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence took place way back in the year 1996 and they have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. They appear to be first offenders and no bad antecedents have been put forth in order to enable this Court to dub them as habitual offenders. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad 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, the fine already awarded against him is converted into costs of litigation. They are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in equal share to the injured persons, will shall be shared by them equally within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad for compliance. March 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge