Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshan Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 March, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Revision No. 4176 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 4176 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.3.2013
Roshan Lal ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondents No. 2 to 10 had faced the trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 148, 323, 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 86 dated 20.5.2004 registered at Police Station Pinjore. The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 30.5.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of respondents No. 2 to 10 under Section 148, 323, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of their conviction and sentence, respondents No. 2 to 10 preferred an appeal. Petitioner also preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2012 upheld the conviction of respondents No. 2 to 10 qua commission of offence punishable under Section 148, 323/149 IPC and acquitted them under Section 506 IPC and modified the sentence and ordered the release of respondents No. 2 to 10 on probation. Hence, the present petition by the complainant.
Crl. Revision No. 4176 of 2012 (O&M) -2-
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Roshan Lal, Banko Devi and Dev Raj had been inflicted injuries by respondents No. 2 to 10. During trial, prosecution successfully established the commission of offence by respondents No. 2 to 10 punishable under Section 148, 323/149 IPC. The prosecution, however, failed to establish the commission of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC by respondents No. 2 to 10 as the X-ray report with regard to fracture alleged to have been suffered by injured Roshan Lal- petitioner was not proved on record. The Radiologist, who had conducted the X-ray examination, was also not examined during trial. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that offence committed by respondents No. 2 to 10 punishable under Section 325 IPC, was not established on record. The Appellate Court, while ordering the release of respondents No. 2 to 10 on probation has observed as under:-
"As discussed earlier the learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for releasing the appellants on probation on the ground that they had no criminal record and are first offenders. As against this the respondent-complainant Roshan Lal by way of separate appeal has prayed for enhancement of sentence of the appellants on the ground of the appellants being inadequately punished by the learned trial court. The present case had been registered against the appellants in the year 2004. It is not the Crl. Revision No. 4176 of 2012 (O&M) -3- plea of the learned counsel for the respondent- complainant Roshan Lal that the appellants are involved in any other criminal case, though, admittedly, the parties had been involved in civil litigation. As observed earlier the judgment of conviction and order on the quantum under Section 506 of IPC had been held to be not sustainable and thus, the appellants stand convicted only under Section 148 of IPC and 323 read with section 149 of IPC. In the authority "Jagmal Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra) the accused were held guilty and sentenced under Sections 323, 325 of IPC. In an appeal against said conviction the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the substantive sentence imposed upon three accused and instead released them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, whereas one of the accused was not granted the benefit of probation, who was therefore, released on probation by the Hon'ble High Court by observing that he has already suffered rigour of long trial. Similarly, in the authority "Raj Singh and another vs State of Punjab" (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in an appeal filed against the judgment of conviction under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325 of IPC awarded by the learned trial court the appellate authority though granted the relief of probation to two of the accused, but the same benefit was denied to other two accused. In an complaint Crl. Revision No. 4176 of 2012 (O&M) -4- against the complainant party alleging that on the date of occurrence they had been attacked by the complainant party and were also medico-legally examined. From perusal of lower court record it is revealed that the appellants-accused had been regularly appearing before the learned trial court. Taking all the above facts in totality, this court is of the considered view that the appellants-convicts had been adequately sentenced under Section 148 of IPC and 323 read with section 149 of IPC by learned trial court and I do not find any merit in the submission made by the second appellant viz complainant-Roshan Lal to enhance the sentence already awarded by the learned trial court, whereas keeping in view the fact that the civil suit filed by the appellant-het Ram on the basis of agreement to sell vide which he had purchased 3 bighas of land from the vendor-Dharam Pal, had been decreed in his favour and also that the appellants are first offenders, I hereby allow the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants for releasing them on probation of good conduct. Accordingly, while maintaining the judgment of conviction passed against the appellants, they are hereby ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for one year subject to their furnishing the probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each and the appellants are directed in the meantime to Crl. Revision No. 4176 of 2012 (O&M) -5- keep peace and be of good behaviour and in case of any breach of bond during the said period, they shall appear before the learned trial court to receive the sentence so imposed by the learned trial court. Copy of this judgment be placed on the connected appeal titled "Roshal Lal vs State". File be consigned to the record room."
The reasons given by the Appellate Court, while ordering the release of respondents No. 2 to 10 on probation, are sound reasons.
Hence, no interference by this Court is called for. Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 11, 2013 Gurpreet