Crl.Revision No. 219 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.219 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2011 Phool Chand ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.V.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... JORA SINGH, J. Crl.Misc.No. 4825 of 2011 In view of allegation in the application, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the revision is condoned. Application is allowed. Crl.Revision No. 219 of 2011 Phool Chand filed this revision to challenge the judgment dated 12.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhiwani, vide which, appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2006 and order of sentence dated 15.12.2006 by JMIC, Siwani, in Crl. Complaint No.38 of 2000, arising out of FIR No.26 dated 7.4.2000 under Sections 323/452/325/34 IPC, PS Siwani, was accepted. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.4.2000 at about 7.00 AM, Phool Chand, complainant, enquired from his son Nathu as to why he (Nathu) allowed to instal tap near the corner of their house. Nathu replied that tap was installed forcibly by Ajay Kumar and others. At about 7.00 Crl.Revision No. 219 of 2011 (O&M) 2 AM, complainant lodged protest before Ajay Kumar, then Ajay Kumar slapped Nathu. Ajay Kumar gave brick blow on the head of Nathu. Complainant was caught hold by Krishan Kumar and Anand. Krishan Kumar gave brick blow on the head of complainant, whereas Mahabir gave teeth bite on his left ear. Ajay Kumar had gone to the roof then started throwing bricks hitting Nathu. Krishan Kumar gave fist blow to the complainant. Krishan Kumar also gave brick blow heating the complainant. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Respondents-accused were charged under Sections 452/323/325/34 of the Act. Evidence was led by the prosecution. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Ultimately, respondents-accused were convicted under Sections 323/325/452/34 IPC and were directed to undergo imprisonment. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appeal No.73 of 2007/2009 preferred by the State against acquittal was dismissed, whereas appeal No.126 of 2007/2009 by Ajay Kumar and Krishan Kumar was disposed of by ordering them to be released on probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents- accused had caused injuries to Phool Chand and Nathu and this fact is clear from the statement of doctor. 5 injuries were noticed on the person of Phool Chand and 5 injuries on the person of Nathu. Medical evidence corroborates the version of injured eye witnesses, but first Appellate Court failed to Crl.Revision No. 219 of 2011 (O&M) 3 appreciate the evidence on the file. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by first Appellate Court. No reason to differ. According to story, respondents-accused hurled brick bats causing injuries to Nathu and Phool Chand.. Initially, 4 accused, namely, Ajay Kumar, Anand, Krishan Kumar and Mahabir, were challaned. Anand was acquitted by the trial Court. Mahabir had died during the pendency of trial. As per impugned judgment, Ajay Kumar and Krishan Kumar were ordered to be released on probation with further direction to deposit Rs.1,000/- each as fine, payable to the complainant party as compensation. As discussed earlier, 5 injuries were noticed on the person of Phool Chand and 5 injuries on the person of Nathu, but no fracture was noticed. Doctor stated that possibility of injuries on the person of Phool Chand and Nathu by fall against hard surface cannot be ruled out. Phool Chand in cross-examination stated that Ajay Kumar and Anand had caught hold him, whereas Krishan Kumar gave fist/kick blows. Ajay Kumar had gone to the roof and started pelting stone, hitting him and his son Nathu. Earlier to the occurrence, there was no enmity against the parties. Dispute was regarding installation of water tap. Complainant party was protesting as to why water tap was installed near the corner of their house. According to story, respondents-accused gave fist/kick blows. Ajay Kumar had pelted stones from the roof. That means, intention was not to murder but simply to cause injuries when complainant party lodged protest regarding installation of water tap. When injuries were found to be simple in nature and there was Crl.Revision No. 219 of 2011 (O&M) 4 no fracture, then I am of the opinion that Ajay Kumar and Krishan Kumar were rightly ordered to be released on probation on furnishing probation bond with further direction to deposit Rs.1,000/- each as fine, payable to the complainant party as compensation. First Appellate Court has rightly exercised discretion to release the respondents-accused on probation. No reason to differ. For the reasons recorded above, revision without merit is dismissed. 11.5.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE