Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 Date of decision. 09.12.2009 Bhup Singh son of Mangtu Ram, r/o village Ludesar, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Khushal Singh, 2. Rai Singh, 3. Narender 4. Deep Chand ss/o Madan Lal s/o Ram Murti, 5. Rajesh s/o Rai Singh s/o Ram Murti, rs/o village Ludesar, Tehsil and District Sirsa, 6. State of Haryana through Public Prosecutor Sirsa. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision petition has been filed for enhancement of sentence and grant of compensation, against the judgment dated 03.12.2008, rendered by the Additional Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --2-- Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Sirsa, vide which he dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2005 and the order dated 29.03.2005, releasing the accused/respondents on probation of good conduct. 2. On 25.08.1995 at about 2/3 PM, the complainant alongwith his father Hangtu, brother Sheo Bhagwan and one Sohan Lal son of Shankar Lal, was watering the fields, while Sheo Lal son of Pat Ram, his maternal uncle was sitting at the tubewell. In the meanwhile, all the accused (now respondents) armed with lathies and Kassias, reached there. They caused grievous as well as simple injuries on the person of Bhup Singh, complainant, and Sheo Bhagwan, his brother. When lalkara was raised, Sheo Lal and Sohan Lal were attracted to the spot, as a result whereof, the accused decamped from the spot, with their respective weapons. After the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Nathusari Chopta, in a jeep, they were medico-legally examined. Bhup Singh, complainant suffered fracture of his left leg. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. Ultimately, a criminal complaint was filed. 3. Preliminary evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --3-- the offences, punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they were summoned. 4. During the pendency of the trial, Rajesh, one of the accused, died on 29.05.1998 . 5. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant himself appeared as PW-1 and examined Sheo Bhagwan, as PW2, Sheo Lal, as PW-3, Mangtu as PW-4 and Dr. M.C. Jaini, as PW-5. Thereafter, the trial Court found that a prima-facie case was made out, against the accused. Charge for the offences, punishable under Sections 323, 324, 447 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused. 6. After framing the charge, the witnesses were further cross-examined. 7. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties,and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the trial Court convicted and released the accused on Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --4-- probation of good conduct, as stated above. 9. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the appellant/complainant, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.12.2008, by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Sirsa. 10. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision- petition has been filed, by the complainant/revision-petitioner. 11. Alongwith the revision-petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1401 days, in filing the revision petition, was filed by the revision-petitioner, on the allegations, that against the judgment of conviction and the order, releasing the accused, on probation, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, an appeal was filed, in the Court of Sessions, within the period of limitation, under bona-fide mistake, which was, otherwise, not maintainable. The appeal remained pending, in the Appellate Court. Ultimately, the same was decided on 03.12.2008 holding that the same was not maintainable. It was also stated that, on account of this reason, delay in filing the instant revision-petition, occurred. 12. In reply to the application, it was stated that the complainant was assisted by Mr. A.N. Jain, Advocate, retired District Attorney, having practice of more than 40 years, on Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --5-- the criminal side only. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, it could not be said that on account of bona- fide mistake, an appeal was filed, which was not maintainable. It was further stated that delay in filing the revision-petition has not been explained satisfactorily. It was further stated that the applicable be dismissed. 13. Notice of motion of the revision petition limited to the question of grant of compensation, to the injured persons, was only issued vide order dated 06.08.2009. 14. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 15. First coming to the application for condonation of delay, it may be stated here, that it is a fit case, in which delay should be condoned, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It appears that on account of bonafide mistake, the complainant filed an appeal for enhancement of sentence and grant of compensation. The appeal remained pending, in the Appellate Court. Ultimately, the Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal, on the ground that the same was not maintainable. On account of filing the appeal, in stead of revision-petition, the delay occurred. The complainant, being an illiterate person, did not know the intricacies of law. He depended upon his Counsel. It was for the Counsel to give him Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --6-- proper legal advice. If he was not given proper legal advice, as to whether, an appeal was maintainable or a revision petition was maintainable, he is not to suffer for the fault of his Counsel. It was not that there was complete inaction on the part of the revision-petitioner. It was also not that he adopted a callous approach, as a result whereof, delay in filing the revision petition, occurred. It is settled principle of law, that the Courts are required to be liberal, in condoning the delay, if sufficient cause is shown by the party , seeking such a relief. In the instant case, sufficient cause, has been shown, by the revision-petitioner, in filing the revision petition, after a delay of 1401 days. Under these circumstances, the application is accepted, and the delay of 1401 days, in filing the revision petition, is condoned. 16. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that the a number of injuries, were caused, on the person of the complainant and his brother by the accused/respondents. He further submitted that, on account of the injuries, caused on the person of the complainant, he remained admitted in the hospital for a period of 1-1/2 months, due to the fracture of his foot, which was plastered. He further submitted that it was a fit case in which, compensation should have been granted, by the Court below, to the injured, but the same was illegally denied. Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --7-- 17. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have been facing the criminal proceedings, for a number of years. It was further submitted that, under these circumstances, the Courts below, after taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly came to the conclusion, that it was not a fit case, in which the compensation should be granted. It was further submitted that, no ground for the grant of compensation, is made out. 18. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the compensation should be granted, to the injured, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The complainant and the injured suffered injuries, at the hands of the accused/respondents. The Court below, taking lenient view, released the accused, on probation of good conduct. That does not mean that the injured were not entitled to compensation. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital for a period of 1-1/2 months. He must have spent a lot of money, for his treatment, special diet etc. According to Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Court directing the release of an offender under Section 3 or Section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --8-- time, a further order directing him to pay such compensation, as the Court thinks reasonable, for loss or injury caused to any person, by the commission of the offence; and such costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks reasonable. There is nothing, in the judgment of the Courts below, as to why the compensation was not granted to the injured especially when they had suffered injuries, at the hands of the accused/respondents. Had any reason been recorded for declining the same, the matter would have been different. The mere fact that the accused/respondents have been facing the criminal proceedings, since 1995, is not sufficient to decline them the relief of compensation. The ends of justice, will be met, if the accused/respondents are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to each of the injured. 19. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction and the order of releasing the accused/respondent on probation of good conduct, are modified in the manner, that the accused/respondents are also directed to pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to each of the injured. The amount of compensation shall be paid/deposited by the accused/respondents, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, within a period of two months, from today. Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --9-- If the accused/respondents failed to pay/deposit the amount of compensation, within the stipulated period, then the trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed further, for recovery of the amount of compensation, in accordance with the provisions of law. 09.12.2009 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge Crl. Misc. No.28749 of 2009 in Crl. Revn. No.1510 of 2009 --10-- Present: Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. **** Reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 1401 days, has been filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4. Copy supplied. Arguments on the application, as also in the main revision petition have been heard. Vide my separate judgment of even date, the revision petition is partly accepted. 09.12.2009 (Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge