Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 80 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2006-01-10

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against judgment dated 16.3.1994 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby Balbir Singh accused- appellant was convicted for offence under Section 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. Out of the fine, if collected, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was to be paid to injured Kabool as compensation. 2. Prosecution case against the accused-appellant is that on 13.5.1992 at about 5 PM, when Kabool and one Satbir had started for a walk, then Raj Karan, Ram Chander and Phool Kumar came with a camel cart and had asked Kabool not to tether his camel on the way as it hampered the Rasta. They also threatened that they would park their camel cart in front of house of Kabool. Then Balbir Singh came with a Doga (walking stick) in his hand and gave a Doga blow on the head of Kabool. Phool Kumar gave a brick blow on the forehead of Kabool. Raj Karan and Ram Chander caught hold of Kabool. Hearing the cries, Amar Ali father of Kabool reached there. Then Sajjan Kumar accused caused injuries upon the left eye of Kabool, by throwing a piece of stone. Thereafter all the five accused gave Kabool slaps and fist blows. Kabool had fallen down. Kabool was rescued by his father Amar Ali and one Satbir Singh from the clutches of the accused. Then accused had run away. Kabool was taken to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Case was registered on his statement. Challan for offence under Section 307/34 IPC was presented against Balbir Singh appellant and five others. However, after trial, all others were acquitted whereas Balbir Singh was convicted for offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. No revision had been filed by the State or the complainant as against acquittal of the other accused or for enhancement of sentence of Balbir Singh. 4. Counsel for the appellant had argued that Balbir Singh had also injuries on his person. It was pointed out that during the course of trial, it came during medical evidence that injuries Nos. No revision had been filed by the State or the complainant as against acquittal of the other accused or for enhancement of sentence of Balbir Singh. 4. Counsel for the appellant had argued that Balbir Singh had also injuries on his person. It was pointed out that during the course of trial, it came during medical evidence that injuries Nos. 2 and 3 on the person of Kabool injured could be just extension of injury No. 1 and, as such, only one blow could have been there. It was argued that even as per statement of Kabool, brick-bat blow was given on his head by other accused who have since been acquitted. It was argued that no independent witness was examined except Kabool who appeared as PW5 and his father Amar Ali who appeared as PW6. It was argued that in fact there had been altercation. Kabool had fallen on the ground and received injuries on the head. 5. It was also argued that there was delay of 17 hours in lodging of the FIR. 6. As far as delay was cornered, the other accused have since been acquitted. This Balbir Singh present appellant, has been specifically named in the statement of Kabool as the person who had given blow with Doga i.e. walking stick on the head of Kabool. This fact has been supported by Kabool and his father Amar Ali. There was no necessity to examine all the witnesses. 7. When there was injury on the person of Balbir Singh accused/appellant, his presence at the time of occurrence is duly established. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal as far as conviction is concerned and the same is dismissed. 8. Counsel for the appellant had lastly argued that occurrence had taken place about 14 years back and appellant was convicted more than 10 years back. There had been no dispute between the parties thereafter. They are living peacefully. It will not be proper at this stage to send the appellant to jail. He has prayed that benefit of probation should be given. A judgment of this Court reported as Garib Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2001(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 96 was relied. 9. In the present case, Balbir Singh appellant had also received injuries on his person and one was on his head. He has also suffered quite enough. A judgment of this Court reported as Garib Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2001(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 96 was relied. 9. In the present case, Balbir Singh appellant had also received injuries on his person and one was on his head. He has also suffered quite enough. He had been burdened with fine of Rs. 2000/- which had since been deposited when Balbir Singh appellant applied for bail in the trial Court after his conviction. Out of the fine of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 1000/- had already been directed to be paid as compensation to Kabool injured. 10. Under these circumstances, I find it a fit case where benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the present appellant. It is directed that appellant shall be released on probation for a period of two years under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate Rohtak. The bonds shall be furnished within a period of two months from today. During the period of probation, he would keep peace and be of good behaviour. 11. With above modification, this appeal stands dismissed.