Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.328 of 2003 Date of decision: February 22, 2010 Lachhman Dass and others .....PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Ashish Pal Kaushal, Advocate for Mr R.K.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S .MANN,J. (Oral): The petitioners were tried by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda on the allegations of causing injuries to Sat Pal on 5.11.1999 at 10.00 AM in the area of village Pakka Kalan. Vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2001, Bhim Chand petitioner was convicted under Section 325 IPC, while Lachhman Dass and Darshna Devi petitioners under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 1½ months. Lachhman Dass petitioner was convicted under Section 324 IPC, while Bhim Chand and Darshna Devi petitioners under Section 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 1 month. Similarly, Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2003 -2- Darshna Devi petitioner was convicted under Section 323 IPC, while Lachhman Dass and Bhim Chand petitioners under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 29.1.2003 by maintaining the conviction and sentences of the petitioners. They are now before this Court by way of present revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners. However, he has submitted that the petitioners are neither previous convicts, nor there is anything against their antecedents or character to deny them the benefit of probation. In any case, all the petitioners have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since November 1999. They have already undergone a sentence of about two months in jail, out of the maximum sentence of one year imposed upon them. During the occurrence, none of the petitioners had repeated the blow. Moreover, there was no previous enmity between the parties and as per the prosecution case, the accused caused injuries to the injured as he used to clear his throat while passing near them. Therefore, the sentences of the petitioners be reduced to that already undergone by them. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that each of the petitioners had caused one injury to the injured, as a result of which, the right parietal bone of the injured under injury No.1 was fractured. Therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2003 -3- None of the offences for which the petitioners stand convicted is punishable with life imprisonment. None of the petitioners is shown to be previous offender. For the aforementioned reasons, the petitioners ought to be granted the benefit of probation. However, this Court finds it difficult to release the petitioners on probation on the ground that the accused had selected vital part of the injured, while inflicting injury No.1, which was on the right parietal region of the skull of the injured. X-ray was advised for the said injury. According to PW-1 Dr. H.L.Garg, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Bathinda, the x-ray of the skull showed fracture of the right parietal bone. That is a special reason to deny the benefit of probation to the petitioners. However, it is the case of the prosecution itself that none of the petitioners had repeated the blow. All three of them had caused an injury each to the complainant. The 4th injury found on the person of Sat Pal injured was attributed to Veero @ Veer Pal Kaur with reverse side of the Gandasa and said Veero was found to be a juvenile and separately proceeded against. All the petitioners were taken into custody on 29.1.2003, upon dismissal of their appeal by learned lower Appellate Court. The present revision was admitted on 27.3.2003, when the sentence of the petitioners was suspended and they were ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds. They had, thus, undergone a period of about 2 months in jail as convicts. The sword of criminal prosecution has remained hanging on the heads of the petitioners since November, 1999. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that instead of sending the petitioners once again behind the bars to serve their remaining sentences, ends of justice would be amply met if the Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2003 -4- substantive sentences of the petitioners are reduced to that already undergone by them. At the same time, all of them can be directed to pay specified amount as compensation to Sat Pal injured. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 325, 325/34, 324, 324/34, 323 and 323/34 IPC is maintained. However, their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. The sentence of fine alongwith the default clause is maintained. Bhim Chand and Lachhman Dass petitioners are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/-, while Darshna Devi petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the trial Court within four months from today. The same be, thereafter, paid to Sat Pal injured as compensation. In case, the aforementioned amount of compensation is not paid by the petitioners within the stipulated time, the revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the petitioners shall be required to undergo the substantive sentences of imprisonment as imposed upon them by the Courts below. Revision is, accordingly, disposed of. (T.P.S.MANN) February 22, 2010 JUDGE Pds.