Criminal Revision No. 592 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 592 of 1997 Date of Decision: 23.01.2008. Paramjit Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Paramjit Singh son of Shamsher Singh and Sukhraj Singh son of Amarjit Singh, both residents of Village Jasseana, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot. FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded on 21.7.1992 at 6.30 P.M., whereas the occurrence has taken place on 16.7.1992 at 7.00 P.M. Briefly stated as per the FIR it was stated that complainant Malkiat Singh was returning from his field on his tractor, he was followed by another tractor belonging to Sarpanch Darshan Singh and Major Singh son of Darshan Singh. When complainant's tractor reached near the field of Paramjit Singh petitioner he found that there many trees were lying fallen. Therefore, he made an attempt to take tractor form the corner of passage. Resultantly, crops sown in the field of Paramjit Singh was damaged, upon which a lalkara was given by Paramjit Singh Criminal Revision No. 592 of 1997 2 petitioner and thereafter he gave a gandasa blow on the left hand thumb of Malkiat Singh and Sukhraj Singh petitioner gave a dang blow on lower portion of back of Malkiat Singh, complainant, who was later medicolegally examined. Petitioner Paramjit Singh was charged substantively under Section 326 IPC, whereas his co-accused Sukhraj Singh with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Sukhraj Singh petitioner was charged substantively under Section 323 IPC, whereas his co-accused Paramjit Singh was charged with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Malkiat Singh was examined by PW.3 Dr. S.K.Jindal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, and following two injuries were found on his person:- 1. Incised wound 5 cm X ½ cm X bone deep on the dorsum of the left hand at the base of the thumb. 6Cm below the wrist joint. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. Reddish contusion 10 cm X 3 cm on the left side of the chest on the lateral aspect 22 cm below the axilla. Injury No.1 was subsequently declared as grievous as there was dislocation at the first Metacarpophalangcal joint. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that in the present case offence under Section 326 is not made out as the occurrence had taken place on the spur of moment spontaneously when due to the act of complainant crops sown by petitioner Paramjit Singh were damaged. He further stated that there was a provocation for the petitioners to cause injury. Criminal Revision No. 592 of 1997 3 I find merit in this contention of Mr. Mann. For a farmer whose crop is damaged there can be no other grave or sudden provocation. One has to work hard to bring his crop and if the same is damaged then he has to react. This Court has to assume as how farmer who has toiled hard, will act when his crop is damaged. There is only one injury on thumb which resulted in dislocation of thumb of left hand and another is simple injury. These two injuries had been distributed to the two petitioners. Both the petitioners have not acted cruelly. Thus, due to the present circumstances, offence will not fall under Section 326 IPC but under Section 335 IPC. Section 335 IPC prescribe maximum punishment of four years. Accordingly, offence is converted from 326 IPC to 335 IPC. Present petitioners were convicted under Section 326 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment and they have already undergone 13 days actual sentence. Since maximum punishment under Section 335 IPC is four years, in the present case benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 can be extended to the petitioners. Therefore, the present petitioners are ordered to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 for a period of one year to maintain peace and good behaviour. They will also furnish two sureties each in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. However, both the petitioners will deposit Rs. 20,000/- each as compensation to be given to the injured. Non-deposit of amount of compensation by the petitioners in the Court will be considered as dismissal of the present revision petition and the petitioners will undergo the sentence awarded to them by the Courts below. Criminal Revision No. 592 of 1997 4 With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 23, 2008 “DK”