Crl. Revn. No. 1975 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 1975 of 2002 Date of Decision : April 20, 2009 Amarjit Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by Amarjit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Gurmit Singh – all sons of Jagtar Singh. All the three petitioners and their father Jagtar Singh were tried together for offence under Sections 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – the IPC). Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, vide judgment and order dated 08.09.1999 convicted all the four accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 325 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one Crl. Revn. No. 1975 of 2002 2 month under Section 324 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC. Jagtar Singh was, however, sentenced to imprisonment for one year only and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days for offence under Section 325 and 324 IPC. In appeal preferred by all the four convicts, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide judgment dated 16.09.2002, acquitted Jagtar Singh, but maintained the conviction and sentence of present three petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, they have preferred the instant revision petition. According to the prosecution version, on 05.06.1997, Amarjit Singh armed with gandasa, Sukhwinder Singh armed with iron rod and Gurmit Singh armed with daang attacked the complainant Gurdev Singh on exhortation of Jagtar Singh and caused injuries to the complainant. Nirmal Singh and Rachhpal Singh were attracted to the spot. They raised alarm and the accused ran away. On medico-legal examination of the complainant, nine injuries were found on his person. Injury no. 1 related to extraction of a tooth. The said injury was, therefore, grievous. Injuries no.4 and 5 were also declared grievous after X-ray examination because there was fracture of distal end of right radius and fracture of right fibula. All other injuries were found simple. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Dr. Jaswant Singh (PW-1) stated that he medico-legally examined the complainant and found nine injuries on his person. After perusal of opinion of dental surgeon and X-ray reports, injuries no.1, 4 and 5 were declared grievous. Dr. Vajinder Singh (PW-2), Radiologist stated about X-ray examination of the complainant and fracture of wrist and fibula mentioned above. Dr. Chaman Lal (PW-3) stated that Gurdev Singh was opined to be unfit to make statement. Complainant Gurdev Singh (PW-4) Crl. Revn. No. 1975 of 2002 3 and Nirmal Singh (PW-5) have broadly stated according to the prosecution version. SI Achhar Singh (PW-6) has stated about investigation of the case. The accused, in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, simply denied the prosecution version. They did not lead any evidence in their defence. Statement of complainant Gurdev Singh has been corroborated by eye-witness Nirmal Singh. Their statements are further corroborated by medical evidence. The prosecution evidence is thus cogent and reliable and sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioners. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioners by both the courts below based on appreciation of evidence. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the finding of guilt of the petitioners is affirmed. As regards sentence, perusal of Custody Certificate filed today in Court by learned State counsel reveals that the petitioners have already remained in custody for 04 months and 14 days. The occurrence took place almost 12 years ago. Keeping in view all the circumstances including nature of offences, it would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioners again behind the bars after lapse of such long period. The grievous injuries were not on vital parts. The petitioners are not reported to be previous convicts. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which the petitioners should be released on probation. There is no special reason for denying this benefit to them. However, they have to be directed to pay compensation for the injured-complainant. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one similar surety each, undertaking to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during period of two years and in the meantime, to keep peace and to be of good behaviour. The fine amount Crl. Revn. No. 1975 of 2002 4 is converted into cost of proceedings. In addition thereto, the petitioners are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation for the injured- complainant Gurdev Singh. The petitioners shall furnish the probation bonds and deposit the compensation amount in the trial court within two months from today, failing which the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit of compensation amount, the trial Magistrate shall issue notice to the injured-complainant Gurdev Singh and shall pay the compensation amount to him. With modification in the sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. April 20, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE