JUDGEMENT SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court in Case No.64-2 of 2003, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 506 and 500 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been challenged by the State in the present appeal. 2. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. PW1 complainant Prem Dass is the father of the prosecutrix. Her marriage was solemnized on 16.4.2003 in their village. On 17.4.2003, the marriage party while returning to their village in two Taxi vehicles bearing registration No.HP-01-A-399 and HP-01-A-3105, around 3 p.m. reached Frela Nalla, they noticed that the road was blocked by putting boulders! stones. When the said vehicles slowed down, the respondents, who were standing on the road asked the reason for blocking the road. On this, respondent Ramesh Chand instead of clearing the road obstruction asked them as to why the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with Raj Kumar and told them to take out the bride and bridegroom from their vehicle and started grappling with the marriage party. The respondents alleged to have hurled abuses and threatened the marriage party and the prosecutrix with dire consequences. They stopped the marriage party from proceeding to their village Dhar Chhatri. When the other members of the marriage party came out of their vehicles, the respondents made escape from the spot. 3. PW1 Prem Dass aforesaid reported the matter to the police in terms of the FIR Ext.PW1 !A. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan Ext.PW5!A and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Finding involvement of the respondents for the aforesaid offences, they were accordingly challaned in the Court. 4 Finding prima-facie a case against the respondents, they were accordingly charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW3, her father PW1 Prem Dass, PW2 Man Singh, father of the bridegroom and PW4 Lal Dass, who was a member of the marriage party besides examining PW5 S.I. Kaur Singh Investigating Officer. 6.The respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances, which were found attendant upon them were put to each of them, to which they denied. 6.The respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances, which were found attendant upon them were put to each of them, to which they denied. They took up the stand that it was a false case against them and the trend of cross-examination shows that respondent Ramesh Chand was having love affairs with the prosecutrix. Though, they admitted their presence on the spot, but according to them they had come to bless the prosecutrix over which the marriage party felled offended. 7. Learned trial Court on examination of the evidence, acquitted the respondents, on the ground of contradictions and also that the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence. 8. Shri A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is perverse. There is no contradiction in the statements of the witnesses and further that the offences charged and proved against each of the respondents, therefore, there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. 9. Contra, Shri Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and further ventilated that there is contradiction between FIR and the statement of the PW1 complainant Prem Dass. He also argued that the complainant had considerably improved the version during the trial, which was not initially set-up by him in the FIR and that the circumstances on record show that the prosecutrix was quite intimate with the respondent Ramesh Chand and he only came to the spot alongwith his Biradari members to bless her to which marriage party took offensive. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully and cautiously scanned the evidence on record. 11. The photographs of the prosecutrix with respondent Ramesh Chand Exts. DA, DB and DC, which are admitted by the prosecutrix herself having been taken in the year 1997. It shows the extent of intimacy between them. This fact stands also proved by the letters Exts.DK to DN of the prosecutrix. Further it is established on record that the prosecutrix and the respondent Ramesh Chand were class-fellows till they passed Plus two examination in the year 1998. Thereafter, the prosecutrix did her graduation and took admission in the University. It shows the extent of intimacy between them. This fact stands also proved by the letters Exts.DK to DN of the prosecutrix. Further it is established on record that the prosecutrix and the respondent Ramesh Chand were class-fellows till they passed Plus two examination in the year 1998. Thereafter, the prosecutrix did her graduation and took admission in the University. She also admitted that they have been exchanging love letters till the year 2000 and intended to marry, but thereafter, their ties got snapped on some misunderstanding. Raj Kumar with whom, the prosecutrix was married on 16th/17th October, 2003, was employed as Vidya Upasak. It also stands proved that when marriage party was returning to their village, they were intercepted near Frela Nalla by the respondents and an obstruc tion was raised. Though complainant stated having been givenbeatings to them by the respondents, but initially this fact was not mentioned in the FIR. This part of the statement is an improved version, which cannot be relied upon. 12. As a matter of fact, the duty of the Court is toreach to the truth and the truth is spelt out by PW4 Lal Dass, who was also a member of the marriage party. He testified that when their vehicles reached at Frela Nalla the road was blocked by putting some stones and the respondents were present there. They asked to take the bride and bridegroom, out of the vehicle and one of the respondents was having photographs in his hand. He asked the respondent Balbir what was the matter, then he assured that nothing would happen. In the meantime, PW1 Prem Dass father of the prosecutrix came out of the vehicle and the respondents started arguing with him. The stones which were put on the road were removed by the marriage party, except this he did not say anything else. He was cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons, but nothing material could be extracted in his statement except that his statement was not recorded by the police. 13. The stones which were put on the road were removed by the marriage party, except this he did not say anything else. He was cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons, but nothing material could be extracted in his statement except that his statement was not recorded by the police. 13. PW1 Prem Dass and PW2 Man Singh, father of the bridegroom and PW3 prosecutrix are admittedly related to each other and they have exaggerated the actual version to some extent for obvious reasons, but statement of PW4 Lal Dass affords the corroboration to the prosecution case to the extent that the marriage party was restrained to move in a particular direction by the respondents and they were also criminally intimated by the respondents in furtherance of their common intention. 14. Therefore, on the scrutiny of the evidence aforesaid, in my opinion, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and is thus set-aside. Respondents are proved to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, they are held guilty for the aforesaid offences and stand accordingly convicted. 15. Shri Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the convicts submitted that respondents Veer Singh and Balbir Singh, were in their thirties and other early twenties on the day of alleged incident. There is no criminal history to their credit and further that Man Singh respondent is a Government servant, therefore, the lenient view may be taken by giving them the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 16. I have considered the above argument of the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents were definitely aged young people, who often commits indiscretions and such indiscretions should oftenly be condoned. The apex Court in Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar [ (2011) 4 SCC 644 ] observed that after all youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature manner as older people do. 17. The respondents were definitely aged young people, who often commits indiscretions and such indiscretions should oftenly be condoned. The apex Court in Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar [ (2011) 4 SCC 644 ] observed that after all youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature manner as older people do. 17. In the instant case, it stands proved that the prosecutrix and the convict Ramesh Chand were having love affairs with each other for a considerably long time, they exchanged love-letters, took liberties and photographed with each other in very intimate positions and postures but it appears that due to some misunderstanding, or because of arranged marriage of the prosecutrix with another boy, their relations became strained, which became intolerable and an unbearable experience to respondent Ramesh Chand. Thus, he in association with his friends, to lodge his protest, restrained the Barat to move in a particular direction and criminally intimidated them. 18. In the modern trends, penology requires reformative approach i.e. to reform a person instead of rendering him a criminal for the rest of his life. Particularly in this case, when the respondents have no criminal history and on account of unbearable outburst, they tried to react differently and also the fact that the offences proved are not serious in nature, therefore, I am inclined to take a lenient view and also the offences for which the respondents stand convicted are punishable less than two years, thus, the respondents are given the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. They are duly admonished. 19. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. 20. Send down the records. ******************************************************************