1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 195-SB of 1997 Date of Decision: 21.11.2008 *** Gumani Ram .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dilbagh Singh, AAG Haryana. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.1997 and 25.2.1997 respectively by dint of which the appellant was convicted under Section 325 IPC and awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof further simple imprisonment for three months. As per prosecution version on 11.8.1995 at about 6/6.30 a.m. there was exchange of hot words between complainant Ram Saran and the appellant and in a fit of enragement, the appellant threw a stone, which hit on the right side of head of an infant child of the complainant namely Sudhir and the blood started oozing from his nose and ears. When the complainant grappled with the appellant, then Mahendri and Lajjawati wife and sister respectively of the appellant also came there armed with sticks and gave injuries to the complainant. The complainant was rescued from the clutches of the accused by one Dharam Singh. During investigation, the doctor 2 opined the injury on the person of injured Sudhir as grievous being fracture of tempro parietal bone. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the appellant and two others, referred to above, were put to trial. The accused persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 308 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. During trial the prosecution produced as many as seven witnesses in all viz. PW1 Dr. Renu Ghambir, PW2 Dr. A.K. Aggarwal, ASI Ishraj Singh as PW3, complainant Ram Saran as PW4, eye- witness Dharam Singh asPW5, B.K. Batra, Medical Record Technician, Safdarjung Hospital as PW6 and Swatantar Singh, the Investigating Officer as PW7. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the case of the appellant and others was of denial. In defence they examined Tota Ram as DW1. On conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted accused Mahendri and Lajjawati while convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant but has argued on the quantum of sentence. The main stress is that at the time of occurrence the appellant was a young lad of about 21 years and now he has gone mature. During this period the appellant has has suffered the agony of protracted trial/ appeal for about 13 years and all the fantasies of his young life have gone faded due to the instant occurrence, which otherwise had happened within a spur of moment. It has also been asserted that during all these years the appellant has not acted in a manner prejudicial to the society. In Nathu Ram Vs. State of Punjab, 1990(1) RCR (Criminal) 18, the appellant therein who had been facing the agony of 3 protracted trial for a long period and was not a previous convict, was ordered to be released on probation of good conduct. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant in this case is maintained and the sentence imposed upon him is set aside. Instead of that, the appellant is ordered to be released on probation for a period of two years on furnishing requisite bonds within a period of two months, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, for keeping the peace and be of good behaviour. If, during the period of probation, the appellant violates any condition of the bond or he failed to submit the necessary bonds within the stipulated period, the sentence imposed by the learned trial court shall revive and the appellant will have to undergo the same. Appeal stands disposed of in terms indicated above. (ARVIND KUMAR) November 21, 2008 JUDGE Jiten