Mange Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2452 P&H

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

230                                            CRR-3134-2018 (O&M)
                                               Date of Decision.: 06.02.2023

Mange Ram                                                 ...Petitioner
                                       Versus

State of Haryana and others                               ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:    Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate with
            Ms. Monika Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

            Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate for
            Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate
            for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

            ****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Petitioner is the complainant of case FIR No.318 dated 14.09.2010

registered at Police Station Butana under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section

34 of the IPC.

Vide judgment dated 06.05.2014 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Karnal respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been convicted under Sections 323

& 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Vide separate order dated 07.05.2014, the

two respondents were sentenced to varying imprisonments.

Against the above-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence

respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed appeal before Learned Sessions Judge, Karnal. Though

the judgment against conviction was maintained but the two respondents were

directed to be released on probation. Simultaneously, both of them were also

directed to pay compensation of `24,000/- to be shared by them equally, vide order

1 of 2

CRR-3134-2018 (O&M) -2-

dated 22.05.2018.

It is against the above-said order dated 22.05.2018 of Learned Sessions

Judge, Karnal that this is revision is filed, challenging the probation granted to the

respondents.

It is contended by learned counsel that four injuries were caused to the

petitioner and so probation has been wrongly granted.

Perusal of the judgment passed by the Trial Court reveals that four

injuries were sustained by the petitioner out of which one was incised wound on the

right front region, which was simple in nature. Rest of the injuries were in the form

of abrasion or bruise. Occurrence had taken place way back on 13.09.2010 i.e. more

than 12 years back. Having regard to the aforesaid factual position, this Court

considers that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by Learned

Additional Sessions Judge in releasing the respondents on probation, particularly

when they have been asked to pay compensation to the victim-petitioner.

As such, present petition is hereby dismissed.

                                                    ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
February 6, 2023                                         JUDGE
Neetika Tuteja

                 Whether Speaking/reasoned          Yes/No
                 Whether Reportable                 Yes/No




                                           2 of 2