CRR No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.02.2011 Bharto Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Accused were challaned to face trial for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 11 dated 14.01.2001, registered at Police Station Bawal. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari, on the appreciation of evidence has found all the accused guilty for the commission of offence punishable CRR No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) -2- under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. However, learned Trial Court has passed the following order on the sentence:- “It is well settled that there is not straight jacket formula for awarding the sentence. Every case is to be viewed in its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Convict Dhan Singh is a handicapped person as his one of the legs was amputated. Since convict Dhan Singh is disabled; facing trial for the last seven years; is a first offender and further considering his character and antecedents during trial, he is entitled to be released on probation of good conduct. Furthermore, it is well settled that the law of punishment towards the fair sex is quite liberal. Since convicts Beena Devi and Bharpai are female and are first offenders, therefore, the Court is of the view that the convicts Beena Devi and Bharpai are also entitled to be released on probation of good conduct. Therefore, convicts Dhan Singh, Beena Devi and Bharpai are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each for a period of one year. In the said period, they shall maintain peace and present themseleves as and when called to receive the sentence. 5. However, considering the role attributed to convict Girdhari Lal and the nature of injuries suffered by injured Bharto Devi, convict Girdhari Lal is sentenced to undergo rigorous CRR No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) -3- imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.” Feeling aggrieved, Girdhari Lal accused has preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Rewari. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide order dated 16.03.2010 has observed that offence under Section 325 IPC is not made out, however, offence under Section 323 is only made out and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case specially that other co- accused have been extended the benefit of probation, accused was directed to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount with the direction that he would maintain his behaviour and conduct good for a period of one year, failing which he shall receive the sentence as and when called upon by the Court. A fine / compensation of Rs.25,000/- was also imposed on the accused to be paid to the complainant Bharto Devi. Feeling aggrieved from the order passed by the CRR No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) -4- learned Appellate Court, present revision is preferred by Bharto Devi. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel has raised only one argument that release of accused Girdhari Lal on probation is not proper because he is the main person who has caused injuries on the body of the complainant. No other point is raised on the merit of the case. Perusal of the record would reveal that initially, four accused were asked to face trial for an offence under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Undisputedly, Dhan Singh, Bharpai and Bina Devi were released on probation by the learned Trial Court. No revision or appeal was preferred by the complainant or State against release of other three co-accused on probation. Only Girdhari Lal convict has preferred appeal against his conviction. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that case under Section 325 IPC is not made out against the accused -respondent No.2 – Girdhari Lal. The only offence found to be proved against the accused-respondent No.2 is for causing simple injury under Section 323 IPC. Since, the other three co-accused were released on probation by the learned Trial Court, therefore, in my view, release of respondent No.2 on probation by the learned Appellate Court cannot be said to be unjustified. CRR No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) -5- In the opinion of this Court, sending a first time offender to jail in the company of the hardcore criminals is not desirable, hence, releasing the first time offender on probation for a period of one year giving him an opportunity to reform with some fine would be the best option. In the opinion of this Court, since accused/respondent was first time offender and was also directed to make payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the injured complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence first appellate court was well within its jurisdiction directing the release of the accused on probation on executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount each. Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when a good piece of evidence is escaped from the notice of the Court proving the guilt or Court below has committed manifest error of law or jurisdictional error. This is a case where appellate court has rightly exercised discretion in releasing the accused on probation. I am not inclined to take contrary view. No interference is called for. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge February 03, 2011 vkd