Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pal Singh vs Harjit Singh And Others on 31 July, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Revision No.1687 of 2010 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No.1687 of 2010
Date of decision: July 31, 2012.
Pal Singh
... Petitioner(s)
v.
Harjit Singh and others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Arjanbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
Instant criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.2012 of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby hehas modified the order of sentence dated 24.1.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, by way of which, instead of sentencing, respondents No.1 and 2 were released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety of the like amount along with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to come and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so during the period of one year.
Respondents No.1 and 2 were charged for the offence under Sections 326, 324, 323, 34 IPC. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced them thereunder. Against that, respondents No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar Crl. Revision No.1687 of 2010 -: 2 :- who came to the conclusion that offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out, rather the offence made out is under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and accordingly modified the conviction order although upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and also modified the sentence for release on probation.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner who vehemently argued that serious injuries were caused to the complainant. Respondents No.1 and 2 should not have been let off by giving the benefit of probation and should have been awarded some substantive sentence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that offence under Section 326 IPC is made out, as such punishment under Section 326 provided under the IPC is life imprisonment. In such cases, probation cannot be granted, as such learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the probation order should be set aside and enhanced sentence be awarded to the accused.
I have considered the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner.
At the outset, I would consider whether offence under Section 326 IPC is made out or not. Admittedly, the medical examination was conducted and the nature of injury was to be declared after the x-ray. During the course of trial, radiologist who had conducted the x-ray and submitted report, was not examined. In the MLR, depth of the injury has not been mentioned, rather Dr. G.S. Randhawa appearing as a witness, has declared, without the receipt of x-ray, injury as grievous and also admitted that he himself is not a qualified radiologist. In these circumstances, after referring to State of Punjab v. Mangal Singh and another, 1992(2) RCR Crl. Revision No.1687 of 2010 -: 3 :- (Crl.) 144 (P&H) and Gurmit Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh, 1985(1) CLR 656 (P&H), Additional Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that if the doctor conducting x-ray of the injury is not produced and the doctor opining the said injury as grievous on the basis of ski-gram omitting to give any detail as to how the same was grievous and injury was on the non vital part of the body, the injury cannot be said to be falling within the purview of section 326 IPC. In these circumstances, the appellate court has maintained the conviction under Section 324/34 IPC, however, set aside the conviction under Section 326 IPC and thereafter has released respondents No.1 and 2 on probation. It is specifically mentioned by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar that the accused are not previous convicts, they have been facing the agony of trial for many years. Present age of respondent No.1 was 36 years and of respondent No.2 was 54 years on the date of order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, i.e., 11.3.2010, meaning thereby that the respondents had by that time faced agony of trial for 10 years. In these circumstances, the probation was rightly granted.
Furthermore, the probation period has already expired in the month of March, 2011, so it cannot be said that the Additional Sessions Judge has committed any illegality or impropriety in granting the benefit of probation to respondents No.1 and 2, instead of sentencing them to undergo some substantial imprisonment.
Hence, dismissed in limine.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] July 31, 2012. Judge kadyan