Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.07.2008 Gurcharan Singh @ Judge ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 89 dated 10.6.1997 registered under Sections 324/ 323/ 148/149 IPC at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, on the allegations that he caused injuries to the complainant. Briefly, the facts are that on 10.6.1997 Mohinder Singh complainant got his statement recorded before the police with the allegations that on 9.6.1997 at about 6.00 p.m. when he was going to take a round of his land in the area of Village Jafarwala on his bicycle, Nishan Singh was also present in his land which was situated by the side of land of Mohinder Singh and he was doing agricultural work there. The complainant found that Chanan Singh @ Channa, Jeeto, Balwinder Kaur @ Binder @ Mutto, Gurcharan Singh @ Judge (petitioner herein), Sukhwinder Kaur @ Chindo and Jagjit Singh @ Kala all armed, were irrigating the disputed land. The complainant tried to stop them from doing so at which the accused caused injuries to him. Nishan Singh witnessed the entire occurrence. The reason behind this incident is a previous civil litigation between the complainant and Jeeto. Considering the unimpeachable evidence on record in the form of statements of the complainant, eye witness and the medical evidence, Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2008 2 learned trial Court opined that the charges against the petitioner were proved, and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo the following sentence :- U/s Sentence of R.I. Fine In default 148 IPC Six months Rs. 200/- 15 days 324 IPC Nine months Rs. 300/- one month 323/ 149 IPC Six months Rs. 250/- 15 days The trial court also convicted accused Jagjit Singh @ Kala and Chanan Singh @ Channa. However, the lady accused, namely, Jeeto, Sukhwinder Kaur @ Chindo and Balwinder Kaur @ Binder were ordered to be released on probation. In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused Jagjit Singh and Chanan Singh were ordered to be released on probation, however, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and even his request for granting him benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959 (for short, “the Act”), was also declined. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the aforesaid offences, however, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the complainant, eye witness and the medical evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, the fight took place at spur of moment, he had faced the agony of trial for about eleven years, further that he has three children, wife and old parents to support and being the sole bread- earner of the family, he should be extended the benefit of probation under the Act. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has already undergone actual imprisonment of about one month. He has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 597. Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2008 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the factum of long trial, the petitioner being first offender, sole bread earner of family with three children, wife and old parents to support are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Keeping in view my above observation, the present petition is disposed of by holding that the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder sentence, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga. The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 29.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge