Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 March, 2022
CRR-4653-2015 -1-
(222) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-4653-2015
Date of Decision: 09.03.2022
Ram
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Jasmeet Singh Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Archin Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner-complainant against the order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, whereby the
appeal preferred by accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5, against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2015 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, has been disposed of and
while upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
accused were ordered to be released on probation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.12.2012 on receipt of a
ruqa from Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, ASI Sudagar Singh alongwith other
police officials visited Civil Hospital, Budhlada and took the opinion of the
doctor and the doctor reported that the patient had been shifted to Civil
1 of 5
Hospital, Mansa. Thereafter, on 21.12.2012 and 23.12.2012 the doctor
reported that the patient is not fit to make the statement. Thereafter, on
24.12.2012 he got recorded the statement of complainant Ram S/o Somi,
resident of Budhladha to the effect that he is resident of above said address.
On 20.12.2012 there was a special of rice on the railway and a lot of labourer
(paledar) were present there. Their children were committing theft of rice.
Thereafter, the labourer started throwing stones towards them and they also
threw stones towards them. His wife Suman had undergone a surgery and
she was under treatment. His wife Suman on seeing the dispute, became
worried and thereafter he was taking his wife towards hospital on the rehri
and when he taking his wife towards hospital on the rehri and when he
reached near railway line then Amar Singh s/o Harbans and his father
Harbans started beating him. Amar Singh gave a stick blow on the back of
his head. Thereafter, his father gave a stick blow on the front side of his head
and thereafter he fell down. Meanwhile Ranjit and Babby gave stick blows
on his person. Thereafter, he became unconscious and he was admitted at
Civil Hospital. Thereafter, they received the x-ray report on 26.12.2012 and
the doctor advised bed rest and they also received bed head ticket. Accused
were arrested on 30.12.2012. Investigation was done. Statements of
witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, challan was
presented in the Court against the accused for trial.
3. Pursuant thereto, the evidence came to be recorded and
respondent Nos.2 to 5 came to be convicted by the learned trial Court on
07.01.2015 and sentenced as under:-
2 of 5
Sr. Name of convict Sentence RI Awarded Fine In default
No. under of payment
Section of fine to
further RI
for
1. Harbans Singh 325 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- One month
2. Amar Singh 325/34 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- One month
3. Ranjit Singh 325/34 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- One month
4. Akbar Singh 325/34 IPC 2 years Rs.1000/- One month
5. Harbans Singh 323 IPC 6 months Rs.200/- 15 days
6. Amar 323 IPC 6 months Rs.200/- 15 days
7. Ranjit Singh 323 IPC 6 months Rs.200/- 15 days
8. Akbar Singh 323 IPC 6 months Rs.200/- 15 days
4. The accused preferred an appeal before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which was disposed of on 20.07.2015
and while upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
accused were ordered to be released on probation on furnishing of probation
bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount
thereby undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period
of one. They were directed to pay a compensation amount to the tune of
Rs2,500/- each to the victim.
5. The present revision has therefore been preferred by
complainant-victim, namely, Ram with a prayer that accused-respondents
No.2 to 5 ought to have been ordered to undergo imprisonment as has been
imposed by the learned trial Court and should not have been released on
probation.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contends that
the offence was proved beyond shadow of doubt. Even the learned Appellate
Court though has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
3 of 5
passed by the learned trial Court, yet the fact remains that the accused were
ordered to be released on probation. He further submits that Harbant Singh
along with the co-accused, in furtherance of his common intention, cause
grievous as well as simple injuries on the injured. The injury No.1 on the
person of the injured is grievous in nature and the other injuries attributed to
other accused, namely Amar, Ranjit Singh and Akbar Singh, are simple. He
thus, contended that the manner in which the occurrence and the nature of
offence committed did not entitle the respondents-accused to the benefit of
probation and such a lenient view would encourage the accused to commit
such crimes in future, as well. He thus, contended that the Courts below
should take a deterrent approach while dealing with such offences and a
lenient view would only encourage the accused, who have a criminal bent of
mind, to repeat the crime. He finally contended that the compensation so
awarded by the learned Courts below was a meagre one and thus, no justice
was done to the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5-convicts, on the
other hand, contended that all the accused, are poor persons and the alleged
occurrence had taken place approximately 10 years ago and since then , they
are facing the agony of trial. They also have their families to look after; that
they are the first time offenders and that after the said occurrence, none of
them have committed any other offence. He thus, prayed that the order of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, releasing the
respondents on probation was perfectly legal and does not call for any
interference by this Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for parties.
4 of 5
9. Admittedly, all the accused persons are the first time offenders
and as per the contentions of their counsel, have not committed any other
offence pursuant to the occurrence in dispute, which is also of the year 2012.
Further, the convicts are facing the agony of trial for about 10 years. They are
all poor persons, with their families to look after and as such sending them
behind bars after almost 10 years of the occurrence would not serve any
purpose.
10 In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the
well-reasoned order passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the
judgment passed by the learned trial Court and the same are hereby upheld.
However, the compensation amount awarded by the learned trial Court,
which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is hereby enhanced from
Rs.2,500/- each to Rs.5,000/- each. The same shall be deposited within a
period of 04 weeks from today by each of the convicts before the Illaqa
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate Concerned. This amount will be released to the
petitioner-complainant upon an application moved by him for this purpose.
11. The present revision petition is disposed of, accordingly.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
09.03.2022
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
