IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1803 of 2006 Date of decision: 25th November, 2011 Ramesh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Ram Dhan PW-2 (complainant) had suffered 11 injuries as per the testimony of Dr.Ranjit Ahlawat PW-1. Dr. R.C.Mittal PW-4, who had radiologically examined the injured, found a fracture of shaft of ulna on the right forearm. Thus, out of the 11 injuries as per the opinion of the doctor, only one injury on the elbow was declared as grievous and the remaining injuries as simple in nature. On the statement made by Ram Dhan PW-2, a case FIR No.89 dated 21.06.1996 was registered at Police Station Rajond under Sections 325, 148 and 149 IPC. Maha Singh, along with his three sons namely Ramesh, Suraj Mal, Ram Mehar, and his agricultural labourer Karma, were tried in the above said FIR by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, which vide its impugned judgment dated 19th January, 2004 held the petitioners guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 148 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date the trial Court sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Section 148 IPC. They were further sentenced under Section 325 read with Section 149 Criminal Revision No.1803 of 2006 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners had filed an appeal. The appellate Court below vide its judgment dated 1st September, 2005 upheld the conviction of the petitioners for the above said offences, however, it modified the order of sentence of imprisonment and it reduced the sentence to half of the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. However, the imposition of fine was not changed. Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has stated that since the injured Ram Dhan PW-2 had himself appeared against the accused, he will not be able to assail conviction of the petitioners. However, learned counsel has submitted that occurrence, in the present case, pertains to June, 1996. A period of more than 15 years has elapsed and the petitioners have suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. It is further submitted that all the petitioners have undergone actual sentence of one month and three days. Learned counsel has further brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners, before registration of this case or thereafter, are not involved in any other case. It is submitted that all the four male members of the family along with their agricultural labourer have been put to trial and in case all the five persons are sent behind the bars, the family will suffer immensely. It is stated that except the petitioners, there is no other bread earner of the family. Mr. Dhull has submitted that since reformation of the accused is hallmark of the criminal justice, this Court should give an opportunity to the petitioners to reform themselves and lead a path of rectitude. Counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the petitioners are ready and willing to compensate injured Ram Dhan PW-2 in monitory terms. 2 Criminal Revision No.1803 of 2006 In view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that in case the petitioners are sent behind the bars, it may unnecessarily disturb the prevailing peace, amity and harmony in the village and may initiate further feud, whereas in case the injured is compensated in monitory terms, it may act as a solace. Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, while upholding conviction of the petitioners for the charges framed against them, they are ordered to be released on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year. They shall furnish personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court with undertakings that they shall maintain peace, good conduct and behaviour during the period of probation. However, each of the petitioners is saddled with a cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The petitioners shall be called upon by the trial Court to furnish bonds and to deposit the cost. The amount of cost so deposited, shall be disbursed and paid to the injured as compensation. In case the petitioners commit any breach of the terms and conditions of the bonds, they shall be called upon by the trial Court to undergo the sentence awarded. Non-deposit of the amount of cost shall be construed as dismissal of the present revision petition and benefit of probation shall not accrue to the petitioners. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 25, 2011 rps 3