Criminal Revision No. 499 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 499 of 2008 Date of decision:- 15.5.2008 Sukhwinder alias Sona wrestler ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Rajwinder Kaur , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioner is in a revision before this Court against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 1.3.2008 where the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 294 and 354 IPC has been upheld and the sentence under Section 354 IPC has been reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months with fine. Briefly the facts are that on 29.7.2005 the complainant Atul Kumar lodged a complaint with S.P. City Amritsar stating that he and his wife daily go to the school to drop their children and for the last two days the petitioner was harassing his wife. He insisted her to talk to him on mobile. He comes in a Toyota Qualis car. He even threatened to kill his wife. On the basis of the complaint FIR No. 64 dated 2.8.2005 was registered. After trial learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar vide judgment dated 29.3.2007 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo Criminal Revision No. 499 of 2008 2 following punishments: Offence Punishment U/s 294 IPC R.I. three months U/s 354 IPC R.I. one year, fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for two months. U/s 506 IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside conviction under Section 506 IPC and reduced sentence under Section 354 IPC from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment of six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are glaring discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution which have not been considered at all by the learned courts below and if appreciated, the conviction of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. She submits that in the cross examination, PW-2 Shivani admitted that she used to go out with the accused petitioner quite often and even place of occurrence was also not correctly stated by her. However, the statement about her being acquittance with the petitioner was immediately clarified by her by stating that she often used to go to school. There was no other material on record to show that Shivani had any acquittance or friendly relations with the petitioner before the occurrence. The petitioner is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that unless any legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial or patent illegality is pointed out, the revisional court will not interfere in the findings recorded by the courts below. Merely Criminal Revision No. 499 of 2008 3 because a second view is possible on appreciation of the evidence, this Court would not like to interfere unless the view expressed by the learned court below is not a possible one. Accordingly as far as merits of the claim is concerned I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner had made an alternative prayer regarding release of the petitioner on probation in case the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. The submission is that the petitioner is in custody since 1.3.2008 after the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has old parents, his wife and three years old child to support with no earning member in the family. Though he has been falsely implicated in the case but still as the conviction has been upheld, he will take care not to repeat any such incident in future. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find merit in the contention raised by her for consideration of the prayer of the petitioner for release on probation. The fact that he has already suffered imprisonment for a period of two months and 11 days and he being the only bread earner of the family with old parents, wife and a minor child to support, are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Keeping in view the above observation, the present petition is disposed of by upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 294 and 354 IPC, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder period, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. The petitioner is Criminal Revision No. 499 of 2008 4 also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. May 15 , 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE