Crl. Misc. No. M-23833 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-23833 of 2011 Date of decision : 8.8.2011 Smt. Meena ...Petitioner Versus Dhani Ram & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajat Panjeta, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning judgment, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, whereby respondents No.1 & 2 were convicted for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the said judgment and the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide his judgment, Annexure P-2. The revisional court upheld the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC as well as release of respondents No.1 & 2 on probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complainant has suffered in the case only, as prosecution failed to lead some material evidence before the court below. According to him, the impugned judgment, therefore, deserves to be set-aside and matter be remitted back to the same court for decision afresh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Crl. Misc. No. M-23833 of 2011 2 The occurrence in this case relates to 5th October, 2004 when complainant Meena alleged that at 8.30 A.M., she was doing house work in the street when accused Dhani Ram hit her with his shoulder. She objected to this. However, Dhani Ram hit her with iron rod and inflicted injuries. Later, wife of Dhani Ram also came there and she also inflicted some injuries to her. Investigation ensued in the matter. The accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court after examination of the prosecution evidence and the medical evidence i.e. Statement of Dr. Joginder Singh (PW3), came to the conclusion that the accused were guilty of commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided to release the respondents No.1 & 2 on probation subject to their furnishing bonds in the sum of ` 25,000/- each and to maintain peace and good behaviour for six months, failing which they would appear and receive the sentence. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned judgment. In my considered view, the trial court as well as the court of Additional Sessions Judge, after due consideration, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to respondents No.1 & 2. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 8.8.2011 'rajpal'