Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 798 (PNJ)

Bahadur Singh v. Kewal Singh

2011-03-15

ALOK SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J.: (Oral).- Complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 16.2.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo, vide which accused/respondents No.1 to 4 have been released on probation for a period of six months on furnishing of personal probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each and order dated 4.2.2010 passed by learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, vide which the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 16.2.2009 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that revisionist/complainant is a resident of Kot Fatta and is an agriculturist. On 13.9.2004 at about 10.00 a.m. complainant along with his father Pritam Singh was present in his fields and was cutting the fodder. At that time, his father Pritam Singh was sitting about 3-4 karms behind him. In the meantime, Kewal Singh son of Chand Singh and Chand Singh son of Mahla Singh both residents of village Kot Fatta came there and Kewal Singh was armed with an iron rod and Chand Singh was armed with a soti and Chand Singh asked him why he is cutting fodder as the said land is in his ownership but the complainant told him that since they have sown it, so he is to cut the same. In the meantime, Chand Singh gave a blow with his soti towards his head which hit on his forehead and Kewal Singh gave a blow with iron rod which also hit on his forehead. Chand Singh gave another blow with soti which hit under the right eye and Kewal Singh gave a blow with iron rod which hit on his left thigh. In the meantime, Jaswir Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur accused also came there and exhorted that complainant/revisionist should not be allowed to go alive from the place and they are to taught a lesson to him and the wife of Kewal Singh namely Jaswir Kaur caught him from the hair and Sarabjit Kaur also pulled him and give fist blows. The revisionist/complainant and his father raised the roula and in the meatime, Maghar Singh came present on the spot but all the accused succeed in running away from the spot and they threatened to kill the complainant next time. The revisionist/complainant and his father raised the roula and in the meatime, Maghar Singh came present on the spot but all the accused succeed in running away from the spot and they threatened to kill the complainant next time. The complainant was taken to the civil hospital, Talwandi Sabo by his father after arranging a vehicle. 3. In support of his case, complainant in the pre charge evidence has examined CW1 (wrongly numbered) Dr. Beant Singh Mano, CW2 Pritam Singh, Bahadur Singh complainant himself appeared as CW3 and CW4 HC Jaspal Singh. The respondent-accused cross-examined CW1 Bahadur Singh and CW2 Pritam Singh in after charge evidence and the complainant closed the evidence. 4. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence they examined Maghar Singh as DW1 and Gurdeep Singh as DW2. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, learned trial Court held accused/respondents guilty under Sections 323/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the antecedents and age of the accused, they were ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months on furnishing of personal probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each. 6. Revisionist/complainant preferred an appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court, releasing the accused on probation, along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 4.2.2010 for want of showing any sufficient reason to condone the delay. 7. In the opinion of this Court, learned Court below was well within its jurisdiction directing the release of the accused on probation for a period of six months on furnishing of personal probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each. 8. Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when a good piece of evidence is escaped from the notice of the Court proving the guilt or Court below has committed manifest error of law or jurisdictional error. This is a case where Court below has exercised jurisdiction/discretion in releasing the accused on probation. 9. No interference is called for. 10. Revision is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------