Sardool Singh vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC, and Section 506, IPC, was dismissed.

At the time of preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners opted not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners in view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below, therefore, notice of motion was issued with regard to quantum of sentence only.

Mr. K.S. Pannu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has put in appearance for respondent No. 1, while Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, Advocate, has put in appearance for respondent No. 2.

Mr. J.S. Brar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though the petitioners have not been extended the benefit, while holding them guilty, in spite of certain infirmities in the complainant''s case, but in view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below, he has proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners. However, the benefit in the sentence can be extended to the petitioners while taking into consideration the said infirmities. He further submits that during investigation, the allegations levelled against the petitioners were found to be baseless and, as such, the police had chosen not to file the charge-sheet (report u/s 173, Cr.P.C.) against them. On the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 Karamjit Singh, the petitioners were held guilty. He further submits that petitioner No. 1 Sardool Singh, who is now aged about 58 years, is an agriculturist and is neither required nor involved in any other case. He had caused a simple incised wound on the left fore-arm of Karamjit Singh, while petitioner No. 2 Satta Singh, who was a student at the time of occurrence and has now completed his degree in Bachelor of Technology and is an Engineer, had allegedly inflicted simple injury on the right arm of Karamjit Singh. He too is not a previous convict. It has also been contended that motive for the quarrel was that the petitioners claimed themselves to be the relative of the landlord of the shop, where Karamjit Singh was a tenant. Civil suits pertaining to the said shop had already been decided by the courts below and attained finality. It has also been contended that by now each of the petitioners has suffered incarceration for approximately three months and, as such, they be ordered to be released on probation.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Karamjit Singh (complainant/injured) submits that he has no objection if the conviction of the petitioners is maintained and they are released on probation. However, he submits that adequate compensation be awarded to Karamjit Singh, respondent No. 2-complainant/injured.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the statement suffered by the injured and taking into consideration the allegations levelled against the petitioners, he has no objection if the benefit of probation is extended to the petitioners. He further submits that according to his information, each of the petitioners has already suffered incarceration for approximately three months.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners, but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available on record has been re-scanned.

The depositions of Karamjit Singh (CW1); Jalour Singh, an eye witness (CW2); and Dr. Raminder Narang (CW3) clearly show that both the courts below had rightly held petitioner No. 1 Sardool Singh guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 read with Section 34, 324 and 506 IPC, while petitioner No. 2 Satta Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 and 506, IPC, and, as such, the learned counsel for the petitioners has wisely opted not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners.

The present occurrence had taken place on 02.04.2006 on account of a trivial issue, in which the complainant, Karamjit Singh, had received simple injuries on his left fore-arm, right forearm and on his back. The injuries have healed and the complainant-respondent No. 2 is leading a normal life. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant has stated at Bar that he had no objection if the petitioners were released on probation. However, he insisted that adequate compensation be awarded to the injured.

Learned counsel for the State has also toed the line of respondent No. 2-complainant. Petitioner No. 2 Satta Singh, who was a student at the time of occurrence has now done his Engineering and is in search of a job. Similarly, petitioner No. 1 Sardool Singh is stated to be 55 years old now. None of them is a previous convict. The maximum sentence of imprisonment provided u/s 324, IPC, is for three years, while u/s 506, IPC, it is two years, whereas Section 323, IPC, provides the maximum sentence of imprisonment for one year, therefore, their substantive sentences are ordered to be kept in abeyance and they are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct in view of the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity the ''Act'').

Resultantly, both the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct u/s 4 of the Act subject to the following conditions:-

Each of the petitioners shall furnish probation bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

Each one of them shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour during the probation period of two years.

If any of the petitioners flouts any of the conditions imposed by this Court and is called upon by the Court of competent jurisdiction, then he would serve out the remaining part of his sentence.

Each of the petitioners would pay Rs. 25,000/- (totalling Rs. 25,000 x 2= Rs. 50,000/-) as compensation to respondent No. 2-complainant. The said amount shall be deposited by each of the petitioners before the learned trial Court within one month of passing of this order.

In case, any of the petitioners failed to comply with the order of payment of compensation, then the order of sentence passed against him by the learned Court of Session shall enure.

As soon as the amount of compensation, mentioned hereinabove, is deposited by the petitioner(s), the learned trial Court shall issue notice to the complainant for disbursement of the amount of compensation in accordance with the settled norms.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.