Jai Singh vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 22157 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 22157 P&H
Judgement Date : 18 December, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jai Singh vs State Of Haryana on 18 December, 2023

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162680




                                                            2023:PHHC:162680


CRR-3086-2017 (O & M)                                                             ::1::



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                      CRR-3086-2017 (O & M)
                      Date of decision:18.12.2023

Jai Singh                                                      ...... Petitioner

            V/s

State of Haryana and ors.                                      ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:      Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan,, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.

                  *****

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 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 petitioner-accused alongwith his co-convicts have been

ordered to be released on probation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused/Jai

Singh alongwith co-accused, namely, 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 Mal, Naresh son

of Chander Singh came to be 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:-

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162680

2023:PHHC:162680

CRR-3086-2017 (O & M) ::2::

Name of accused Offence Rigorous imprisonment Jai Singh (petitioner), 323/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 Sandeep, Amit, Balraj, months and Rs.500/- each ID 15 days Naresh, Ramdhan, each Narender and 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 judgments, the petitioner-accused

No.1/Jai Singh has preferred the present revision petition (CRR-3086-2017)

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

26/29.02.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak and the

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162680

2023:PHHC:162680

CRR-3086-2017 (O & M) ::3::

judgmentdated 28.04.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak

and seeking acquittal of the charges framed against him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are

material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Since

the petitioner alongwith his co-convicts has already been granted the benefit

of probation, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the

petitioner-accused No.1 be acquitted of the charges framed against him by

setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the Lower Appellate Court

and the Trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends

that petitioner and his co-accused had caused multiple injuries on the person

of the complainant-injured. Therefore, the petitioner and his co-accused had

rightly been convicted for the offences in question.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

8. Admittedly, a connected petition bearing No.CRR-2901-2017

has been filed by the complainant-injured challenging the aforementioned

orders of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court challenging the

judgment granting the benefit of probation and enhancing the sentence of the

petitioner-accused No.1/Jai Singh and his co-convicts.

9. Vide a separate order of the even date, the said connected

petition has been disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the

judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak is dated 28.03.2017 and

therefore, the petitioner/accused No.1-Jai Singh and his co-convicts have

already undergone the sentence of probation imposed upon them.

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162680

2023:PHHC:162680

CRR-3086-2017 (O & M) ::4::