Judgment:
CRR No.482 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Revision No.482 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2013.
Dalbir Kaur and another ..........PETITIONER(s).VERSUS State of Punjab ..........RESPONDENT(s).CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.N.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner (s).MRS.SiMs.Dhir Malhotra, D.A.G.Punjab, counsel for respondent-State.
******* RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc).Fast Track Court, Sangrur dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners-convicts against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla vide which the petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of Mehta Sachin 2013.09.13 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRR No.482 of 2006 -2- Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced as under:- Name of convict Offence Sentence under Section Dalbir Kaur 325 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Dalbir Kaur 323/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Bhupinder Singh 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Bhupinder Singh 325/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Brief allegations are that complainant Sukhdev Singh is brother of Niranjan Singh, co-accused who has already expired during pendency of trial.
Injuries to him were caused by his brother Niranjan Singh and present petitioners-convicts, who are widow and nephew of Niranjan Singh.
There was a dispute over land.
Injuries were caused by blunt weapons.
Petitioners-convicts faced trial.
They were convicted and Mehta Sachin 2013.09.13 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRR No.482 of 2006 -3- sentenced by learned trial Court as afore-mentioned.
Appeal filed by them against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned appellate Court.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneRs.convicts that he did not want to press the present revision petition so far as the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate Court is concerned.
So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-convicts that petitioner No.1 is a widow aged about 55 years and petitioner No.2 was a young boy at the time of alleged occurrence and closely related to complainant.
It is further contended that they have been facing protracted trial for the last about 13 yeaRs.It is further submitted that petitioners have already undergone about two months of the sentence.
It is also contended that they are not previous convicts.
It has also been contended that no special reasons have been given by the Courts below as to why benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') was denied to the petitioneRs.Hence, it is contended that petitioners should have been released on probation under the Act.
Hence, taking into consideration all these facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted.
While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate Court, the order of sentence is set aside.
Petitioners-convicts Mehta Sachin 2013.09.13 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRR No.482 of 2006 -4- are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on their furnishing probation bonds for a period of one year to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
During this period, they will keep peace and be of good behaviour and be called upon to receive sentence in case of violation of any condition of the bonds.
In addition to it, petitioners are also directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- each as compensation to be paid to the injured-complainant Sukhdev Singh before learned trial Court within a period of one month, failing which orders passed by the Courts below shall stand restored.
Disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 12, 2013 JUDGE Sachin M.
Mehta Sachin 2013.09.13 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH