Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 18 December, 2023
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162681
2023:PHHC:162681
CRR-2901-2017 (O & M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2901-2017 (O & M)
Date of decision:18.12.2023
Ram Kumar and ors. ...... Petitioners
V/s
State of Haryana and ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Kartar Singh Malik-1, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ranvir S. Cahuhan, Advocate,
and Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate,
for respondents No.5& 6,
and Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Advocate,
for respondent No.8.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been preferred against the
impugned judgment dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Rohtak in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2016 whereby while upholding
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, dated 26/29.02.2016, the accused have been
ordered to be released on probation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that eight persons i.e. respondents
No.2 to 9, namely, Jai Singh son of Godhu Ram, Sandeep son of Jai Singh,
Amit son of Jai Singh, Balraj Son of Chander Singh, Ram Dhan son of
Chander Singh, Narender Kumar son of Mahabir, Vijay Kumar son of Suraj
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162681
2023:PHHC:162681
CRR-2901-2017 (O & M) ::2::
Mal, Naresh son of Chander Singh were convicted in FIR No.242 dated
28.08.2008 under Sections 148/149/323/324/325/326 and 506 IPC registered
at Police Station Sadar, District Rohtak and sentenced as under:-
Name of accused Offence Rigorous imprisonment
Jai Singh, Sandeep, 323/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06
Amit, Balraj, Naresh, months and Rs.500/- each ID 15 days
Ramdhan, Narender and each
Vijay
325/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02
years and Rs.2,000/- each ID 02 months
each.
148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01
year and Rs.1,000/- each ID 01 month
each.
3. In an appeal filed by the aforementioned accused, vide
judgment dated 28.03.2017, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, upheld
the conviction but released them on probation for a period of one year on
furnishing requisite probation bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with
one surety in the like amount each with an undertaking to maintain peace
and good behaviour for a period of the next one year and to receive sentence
as and when called upon during the said period of one year in case they
violated any of the conditions of probation. They were further directed to
pay a sum of Rs.24,000/- as compensation (Rs.3,000/-by each appellant-
accused) to the complainant/injured. The said amount of compensation was
to be deposited with the Trial Court by the appellants-accused within a
period of two weeks and thereafter, the Trial Court had to disburse the
amount of compensation (Rs.6000/- to each injured).
4. Against the aforementioned judgment, the complainant-
injured/petitioners No.1 to 4 Ram Kumar, Sant Kumar, Shakuntla and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162681
2023:PHHC:162681
CRR-2901-2017 (O & M) ::3::
Bijender have preferred the present revision petition (CRR-2901-2017)
challenging the granting of probation to the respondent Nos.2 to 9 and
seeking enhancement of sentence including sentence of imprisonment to be
awarded.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak had wrongly released the respondents
No.2 to 9 on probation despite the fact that they assaulted the complainant
party and some of the injuries on their person were declared to be grievous.
Further, only a meagre amount on account of compensation had been
awarded to the injured-complainant party. Therefore, their sentence ought to
be enhanced from the grant of probation to the awarding of sentence of
imprisonment.
6. The learned counsel for the State has supported the case of the
petitioner contending that the sentence of respondent Nos.2 to 9 be enhanced
from the grant of probation to the awarding of sentence of imprisonment.
7. The learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other
hand, while opposing the prayer made in the present petition submitted that
the judgment dated 28.03.2017 had rightly been passed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
8. This Court in Rajinder Singh Versus State of Haryana &
others passed in CRM-M-249-2013 dated 27.08.2018, held as under:-
"The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kaithal is dated 27.10.2012, thus, respondent No.2 and 3
have already undergone sentence of probation imposed
upon them and, therefore, no reason arises for me to go into
the legality or propriety of the impugned judgment.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162681
2023:PHHC:162681
CRR-2901-2017 (O & M) ::4::
The present petition stands disposed of as having been
rendered infructuous."
9. In the present case, the judgment of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Rohtak is dated 28.03.2017 and therefore, the respondent Nos.2 to 9
have already undergone the sentence of probation imposed upon them. Thus,
there is no requirement for this Court to go into the legality or propriety of
the impugned judgment.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as
having been rendered infructuous.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
December 18, 2023
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162681
4 of 4
