Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khushi Ram Yadav vs Radhey Shyam And Others on 12 February, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRR No. 1259 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1259 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 12, 2013
Khushi Ram Yadav
...Petitioner
Versus
Radhey Shyam and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Present criminal revision petition has been preferred by Khushi Ram Yadav (complainant) against the judgment dated 15.2.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby the conviction of the respondents-accused was maintained but they were ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of one year.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents along with their co-accused Billu Ram (since deceased) were booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 379, 427, 452 and 506, read with Section 149, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 263, dated 4.12.1995, CRR No. 1259 of 2012 (O&M) 2 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Rewari, on the brief allegations that on 3.12.1995, at about 9.50 a.m., the petitioner, Khushi Ram Yadav, presented an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Rewari, alleging that Radhey Shyam, Ram Kishan, Murli, Ram Kanwar and Satyadev were demolishing the construction raised by him (Khushi Ram) and they were opening door towards the land of the complainant. The women folk standing on the roof of the house were pelting stones and bricks upon the complainant party. Since no cognizable offence was disclosed at that time, therefore, DDR No. 7, dated 3.12.1995, was recorded. On the same day, at about 10.00 a.m., Khushi Ram Yadav made yet another application before the police alleging that the accused mentioned above had demolished the wall of their house and took away bricks and other material. Consequently, FIR No. 263, dated 4.12.1995, under Sections 147, 148, 379, 427, 452 and 506, read with Section 149, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Rewari.
3. Two reports under Section 173, Cr.P.C., were presented against 10 accused persons and all of them were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 379, 427, 452 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, by the learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 19.9.2007, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. After completion of the evidence of both the sides, the learned Trial Court held the respondents-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 427, IPC, and CRR No. 1259 of 2012 (O&M) 3 sentenced each one of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months, besides payment of fine of `300/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days, for the offence punishable under Section 427, IPC. The respondents-accused were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence punishable under Section 147, IPC,. The fine was paid by the convicts before the learned Trial court.
5. The respondents-accused challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence by way of appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, which was decided on 15.2.2012 and the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation, as has been mentioned herein above.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that the learned lower Appellate Court though released the respondents-accused on probation but failed to award suitable compensation to the complainant.
7. Heard.
8. The respondents-accused are first offenders. They have been facing the agony of the trial, appeal etc. for approximately 18 years. The maximum punishment of imprisonment prescribed for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 427, IPC, is for a period of 2 years. The learned lower Appellate Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction to CRR No. 1259 of 2012 (O&M) 4 release the respondents-accused on probation. The probation period was for one year, which is likely to be completed within a week of passing of this order. The 7 respondents-accused were imposed total fine of `800/- each, which was converted into compensation and ordered to be paid to the petitioner by the learned Appellate Court, therefore, no further order for awarding compensation is required.
9. As a sequel to the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
February 12, 2013 JUDGE
Pkapoor