Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 20 November, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152229
CRR-914-2019 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-914-2019
Date of decision: 20.11.2024
Mahender Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sourabh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant-Mahender Singh against the judgment dated
18.01.2019 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide
which the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment of
acquittal dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Court of CJM, Jhajjar, was
allowed and accused/respondent No.2 Vipin @ Sintu was convicted under
Sections 323 and 325 IPC but was directed to be released on probation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.05.2014, police
reached General Hospital, Jhajjar where complainant Mahender got
recorded his statement to the effect that on 15.05.2014 at about 02:30 PM,
his neighbor Vipin @ Sintu told him to remove the bricks from the street.
On this, the complainant told him that the said bricks would be used within
next 2-3 days. Then Vipin @ Sintu started abusing him and also caused
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152229
CRR-914-2019 [2]
injuries to him. He raised alarm on which his wife Babli and one Bal Kishan
came and rescued him from the hands of the accused. On the basis of the
aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and police carried out investigation.
Accused/respondent No.2 was arrested. On completion of investigation,
challan was presented.
3. A prima facie case being made out, charge under Section 323
and 325 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
4. Prosecution examined PW-1 complainant Mahender, PW-2
Babli, PW-3 Dr. Babulal, PW-4 HC Dalbir, PW-5 Dr. Surinder and PW-6
P/SI Amit Kumar.
5. Thereafter, accused Vipin @ Sintu was examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C. However, accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. The trial Court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated
12.01.2018.
7. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed criminal appeal. The same was
allowed vide judgment dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Jhajjar and accused was convicted under Section 323 and
325 IPC. However, the appellate Court after hearing the accused on
quantum of sentence, gave him concession of probation to keep good
conduct for a period of six months and in case of default to come present
before the Court and to receive the sentence. The accused was also directed
to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner/complainant.
8. The petitioner being not satisfied by the aforesaid order of
probation has filed the present revision petition.
9. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152229
CRR-914-2019 [3]
counsel.
10. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia
submits that the accused caused grievous injury with the help of blunt
weapon on the person of the petitioner, as is evident from the ocular version
narrated by PW-1 complainant Mahender and his wife who appeared in the
witness box as PW-2. It is further submitted that the medical legal report of
the petitioner is Ex.PW-3/A which was proved by Dr. Babulal. That PW-5
Dr. Surinder proved the x-ray and CT scan report, as per which fracture was
detected. It is further submitted that it being so, the appellate Court rightly
convicted the accused under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. It is further
submitted that as the accused caused grievous injury, there was no reason or
occasion for the appellate Court to release the accused on probation. The
said Court should have sentenced the accused to imprisonment. It is further
submitted that if this Court is of the view that there were sufficient grounds
for the appellate Court to give benefit of probation to the accused, then the
compensation awarded by the appellate Court being on lower side requires
to be enhanced.
11. The State counsel submits that the accused was not a previous
convict.
12. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
13. Undoubtedly, the accused was convicted by the appellate Court
under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. The offence under Section 323 IPC is
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year while an
offence under Section 325 IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152229
CRR-914-2019 [4]
extend to 7 years. There was nothing on the record to show that the accused
was having criminal history. The accused was having statutory right to
claim the concession of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. The Court
below was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C,
as per the mandate of Section 361 Cr.P.C. In view of express provision of
Section 360 Cr.P.C and considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the nature of the offence, the antecedents of the accused, the Court below
rightly exercised its jurisdiction and gave concession of probation to the
accused. Further, the appellate Court also awarded compensation of
Rs.10,000/- to the complainant vide its judgment dated 18.01.2019, as is
detailed above.
14. There is nothing available on the record to show that the
accused ever misused the concession of probation or failed to pay the
aforesaid amount of compensation awarded by the Court below.
Admittedly, the period of probation has already expired and the occurrence
in question had happened more than 10 years back. In the given
circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to recall/set aside the
order of probation dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Court below.
15. Taking into consideration, the nature of the injuries sustained
by the petitioner and the trauma suffered by the petitioner on account of the
aforesaid occurrence, interest of justice demands that the compensation
worth Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Court below requires to be enhanced.
Thus, accused/respondent No.2 Vipin @ Sintu is directed to pay
Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner, as an enhanced compensation.
16. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar (appellate
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152229
CRR-914-2019 [5]
Court) is hereby directed to ensure that the aforesaid amount of
compensation worth Rs.25,000/- be recovered from accused/respondent
No.2 and thereafter, disbursed to petitioner Mahender Singh. The entire
exercise is to be completed within a period of next 4 months and the
compliance report is to be submitted with the registry of this Court.
17. The present revision petition is hereby disposed of in aforesaid
terms.
20.11.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
