Punjab-Haryana High Court
Basant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 September, 2014
Crl. Rev. No. 1298 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
Decided on : September 22, 2014
1. Crl. Rev. No. 1298 of 2007
Basant Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
2. Crl. Rev. No. 1325 of 2007
Tarsem Singh & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Gurtek Singh & Anr. ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present : Mr. P.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
(in Crl. Rev. No. 1298 of 2007)
Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.
(in Crl. Rev. No. 1325 of 2007)
Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for respondent No.1
(in Crl. Rev. No. 1325 of 2007)
Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent - State.
Mahavir S. Chauhan, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of two criminal revisions, bearing Crl. Revision No.1298 of 2007 titled "Basant Singh Vs. State of Punjab" and Crl. Revision No. 1325 of 2007 titled "Tarsem Singh & Ors. Vs. Gurtek TRIPTI SAINI 2014.10.01 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Rev. No. 1298 of 2007 -2- Singh and Anr."
Petitioners were tried, convicted and granted probation by learned Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Faridkot, ('trial Court' - for short) vide judgment of conviction/order of probation dated 07.07.2006. That judgment/order was challenged by the injured - Gurtek Singh by way of Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2006, wherein after converting it into the criminal revision, Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, ('revisional Court' - for short) vide judgment/order dated 01.08.2007, maintained the judgment of conviction but set aside the order of probation and instead sentenced the petitioners as under:-
Name of the convicts Offence Sentence Fine Indefault All the six convicts 148 IPC RI for six months .... .... All the six convicts 452 IPC RI for two years Rs.500/- each RI for one month Satpal Singh 325 IPC RI for two years Rs.500/- RI for one month` Tarsem Singh, Neela 325/149 RI for two years Rs. 500/- each RI for one Singh, Paramjit Singh IPC month Basant Singh & Iqbal Singh Tarsem Singh & Iqbal 324 IPC RI for six months .... .....
Singh each
Neela Singh, Paramjit 324/149 RI for six months .... ....
Singh, Basant Singh IPC each.
& Satpal Singh
Paramjit Singh 323 IPC RI for 3 months .... ....
Tarsem Singh, Neela 323/149 RI for three .... ....
Singh, Basant Singh, IPC months each
Satpal Singh & Iqbal
Singh
Judgment/order passed by the learned revisional Court dated 01.08.2007, are under challenge in this criminal revision, which the respondents are contesting.TRIPTI SAINI
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submit 2014.10.01 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Rev. No. 1298 of 2007 -3- that the petitioners do not challenge the findings of conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned revisional Court, but they pray for leniency as regards quantum of sentence. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are first offenders; the offences are very minor in nature and there is no criminal history before or after the occurrence in question. Learned counsel further submit that petitioners are only bread winners of their respective families and have been facing agony of investigation, protracted trial and consequent proceedings since the year 2000.
Allegations against the petitioners are that on 13.09.2000, at about 4:30 PM, complainant along with his nephew and two others, was present at his shop where the petitioners, armed with kapas, kandhalas, dangs and handle of pump, etc., came and inflicted injuries on his and Gurtek Singh's person. The matter was reported to the police; was investigated into; necessary recoveries were effected; injured were medico legally examined and on a challan having been filed, the petitioners were charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 325, 324, 323, 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Though request for leniency in the quantum of sentence is opposed on behalf of the complainant-injured and reliance has been placed on a judgment dated 19.02.2009 passed in Crl. Rev. No. 1087 of 2008 titled "Harbhajan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana" and a judgment dated 12.05.2010 passed in Crl. Rev. No. 1469 of 2000 titled as "Des Raj and Another Vs. State of Punjab" , but it comes out from the record that the FIR TRIPTI SAINI 2014.10.01 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Rev. No. 1298 of 2007 -4- was recorded on 14.09.2000 and since then the petitioners are facing the proceedings and as such have spent best part of their lives defending the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR. The injuries are not serious in nature. It has remained undisputed that the petitioners are only bread winners of their respective families.
Keeping the above circumstances in view I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioners, subject to their paying to the injured - complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- each as compensation. Consequently, while maintaining the judgment of conviction as recorded by the trial Court and maintained by the learned revisional Court, I set aside the order of quantum of sentence and order instant release of the petitioner on probation, subject to their furnishing probation bonds and an undertaking to be of good behaviour and maintain peace during this period of one year, subject to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot and payment of Rs.30,000/- @ Rs.5,000/- each, to the complainant-injured. Amount of fine imposed by the revisional Court shall be treated as costs of litigation In the event of non-payment of amount of compensation, both criminal revisions shall deemed to have been dismissed.
With the aforesaid modification in the order of quantum of sentence, both the petitions fail and are dismissed.
[ Mahavir S. Chauhan ]
September 22, 2014 Judge
tripti
TRIPTI SAINI
2014.10.01 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document