Judgment:
Crl.
Revision No.3992 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Revision No.3992 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 14, 2014.
Harbans Singh ..........PETITIONER(s).VERSUS State of Punjab ..........RESPONDENT(s).CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.RKS Brar, Advocate for the petitioner (s).Ms.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 06.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalanahdar dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner-convict against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar vide which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Mehta Sachin 2014.01.16 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH Crl.
Revision No.3992 of 2013 -2- sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days, except that the sentence was reduced from one year to six months for the offence under Section 325 IPC, maintaining the fine and sentence for the other offence.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including both the judgments rendered by both the Courts below.
Briefly stated, case of prosecution is that on 28.04.2008 at about 8.40 AM complainant was going on his duty and when he reached near Dakoha Fatak, a Safari car of green colour came there in which present petitioner alongwith co-accused came out.
They were armed with hockeys and caused injuries to the complainant.
After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against the petitioner- convict.
He faced trial.
He was convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court as aforementioned.
Appeal filed by him against the judgment of conviction was also dismissed by learned appellate Court, however, the order of sentence was modified as aforementioned.
Mehta Sachin 2014.01.16 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH Crl.
Revision No.3992 of 2013 -3- It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-convict at the time of issuing notice of motion 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.
I have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned Courts below.
Same are based on evidence.
There is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate Court.
Hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only.
So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-convict that he is a fiRs.offender and alleged injuries are on non-vital part of body and hence, he deserves to be given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Aforementioned facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-State.
She has filed custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
Petitioner-convict already undergone more than one month of sentence.
He is not a previous convict.
None of the injuries is on the vital part of the body.
No specific reasons have been given by the Courts below as to why the benefit of probation was denied to the petitioner- convict.
Mehta Sachin 2014.01.16 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH Crl.
Revision No.3992 of 2013 -4- Hence, 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 modified to the extent that petitioner is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing probation bond for a period of one year to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.
During this period, he will keep peace and be of good behaviour and be called upon to receive sentence in case of violation of any condition of the bond.
The amount of fine already deposited by him shall be treated as costs of proceedings.
In addition to it, petitioner-convict is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant-injured as compensation.
Disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 14, 2014 JUDGE Sachin M.
Mehta Sachin 2014.01.16 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH