Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011429
CRR No.2527of 2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
272
CRR No.2527 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.01.2025
Baljeet Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
PRAYER OF THE PETITIONERS:
1. The petitioners seek to set aside the judgment of conviction
dated 08.06.2018, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana,
wherein they were convicted under Sections 325, 323, 324 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.700/- each, along with
default mechanism vide order of even date. The petitioners also
challenge the judgment dated 14.11.2024, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing their appeal against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2018.
BRIEF FACTS:
The case stems from an incident occurred on 08.12.2013 at
approximately 6:00 PM. The complainant, Gagandeep Singh, reported
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011429
that his father, Surjit Singh, was struck by a motorcycle driven by the
accused, Baljeet Singh, near the Samaad of Baba Roodmal. After the
collision, Baljeet Singh verbally abused Surjit Singh and engaged in a
physical altercation with him. Gagandeep Singh intervened, questioning
Baljeet Singh's actions, who appeared to be intoxicated. The situation
escalated further when Ranjit Singh, Jaggi, and Kuldeep Kaur (Baljeet
Singh's wife) arrived at the scene, all armed with weapons. Ranjit Singh
attacked Gagandeep Singh with a kirch (a type of knife), while Baljeet
Singh and Jaggi assaulted Gagandeep and Surjit Singh using fists and a
daang (stick). Kuldeep Kaur kicked Gagandeep Singh. The victims
cried for help, prompting Gagandeep's uncle, Gurmail Singh, to arrive
at the spot, at which point the accused fled. The complainants were
subsequently taken to Civil Hospital Pakhowal for medical treatment,
and FIR No.132 was registered on 09.12.2013.
PETITIONERS' SUBMISSION:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that during the
pendency of the present petition, petitioner No.2 - Ranjit Singh has
unfortunately expired and as such, the proceedings against him may be
abated.
4. Ordered accordingly.
FURTHER SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on conjectures and
surmises. It is contended that the petitioners do not have any criminal
antecedents and have family responsibilities. The petitioners also assert
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011429
that Dr. Jagdeep Kaur, a key witness, had stated in her cross-
examination that there was a possibility of self-inflicted injuries, and
she could not rule out the possibility that the injuries were not severe
when the patient was brought for medical examination. The petitioners
have been facing trial for approximately 13 years, and as such, the
learned courts below should have considered releasing them on
probation under Section 361 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 3 & 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.06.2018 on
merits and restricts his prayer for modification of the order on quantum
of sentence and to release the petitioners on probation in view of their
age and good conduct.
STATE'S SUBMISSION:
6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the judgments
passed by learned Courts below, while contending that the petitioners
had misused and abused the process of law and therefore, the conviction
and sentence imposed by the learned Courts below are justified.
However, learned State counsel does not object to the restricted prayer
made by learned counsel for the petitioners for releasing the petitioners
on probation.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
7. After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, the
Court notes that Sections 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
empower the Courts to release the offenders on probation of good
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011429
conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. Similarly,
Sections 360 & 361 of the Cr.P.C, also empower the Courts to release
the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and
circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh, (2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi,
has held as under:-
"6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal
antecedents against the appellants, the Court is inclined to
give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of
good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining
the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is
directed that the appellants shall be released on probation
of good conduct....."
9. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Lakhvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2021) 2 SCC 763 speaking
through Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, has held as under:-
"6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the
enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of
release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead
of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing
emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of
offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society
without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life
is what is sought to be subserved."
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:
10. After considering the facts and circumstances, having
regard to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011429
petitioners and they have actually undergone sentence of 02 months and
12 days out of total sentence of 1½ years, this Court is inclined to give
them the benefit of probation of good conduct.
11. However, the plight of the complainant and the loss
suffered by him cannot be overlooked. Significantly, the complainant
endured he had suffered injuries substantial enough to attract offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. The complainant has as
much of a right to a free, fair and speedy trial, as does an accused.
Keeping in mind the same, the legislature, in its wisdom, has provided
for a compensatory mechanism in the form of Section 5 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958, which is reproduced below:
Section 5. Power of court to require released offenders to
pay compensation and costs.--
(1) The court directing the release of an offender under
section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same
time a further order directing him to pay--
(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable
for loss or injury caused to any person by the
commission of the offence; and
(b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks
reasonable.
(2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1)
may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the
provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code.
(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same
matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into
account any amount paid or recovered as compensation
under sub-section (1) in awarding damages.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011429
12. In that view of the matter, the instant revision petition
stands disposed of with the following directions:-
• The judgment dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, confirming the
conviction of the petitioners is upheld.
• The order of sentence dated 08.06.2018 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana is
modified to the extent of granting the concession of
probation to the petitioners for good conduct.
• The petitioners shall be released on probation for good
conduct, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
10,000/- each, with a surety of the like amount.
• The petitioners shall pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-
each to the complainant, Gagandeep Singh.
• The petitioners shall submit an undertaking to maintain
peace and good behavior for a period of one year, to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court.
• The petitioners shall remain under the supervision of the
concerned Probation Officer during this probationary
period.
• In the event of non-compliance with the directions or any
breach of the undertaking, the petitioners shall be liable
to undergo the sentence originally imposed.
13. It is made clear that compensation can never fully redress
the suffering endured by the complainant, however, it is a step toward
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011429
acknowledging the hardship faced by him, with an aim to meaningfully
contribute towards his rehabilitation.
14. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
27.01.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
