HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARBANS Singh, aged 42, was convicted under Sections 324/323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') for causing five simple injuries to Amar Singh by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 324 of the Code and to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- under section 323 of the Code. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further two months' and one month's rigorous imprisonment respectively for the said offences. His appeal with regard to conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The sentence of imprisonment under section 324 of the Code was reduced from six months to four months. The fine of Rs. 500/- was directed to be paid to Amar Singh injured. The sentence of imprisonment under section 323 of the Code was left un-interfered with. The fine of Rs. 300/- was set aside. Both the Courts considered but declined to give the benefit of probation to the petitioner primarily on the ground that the injured was a retired military personnel of old age and he must have left hurt and humiliated especially as the incident took place in front of his two grand daughters. The trial Court also observed that the offence especially under section 324 of the Code was a serious one and the punishment provided was upto three years' imprisonment.

(2.) THE present revision was admitted with regard to sentence only. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has undergone ten days and in the facts and circumstances of the case this should be considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice and the sentence should be reduced to be that already undergone. In the alternative, he submits that the petitioner deserved to be released on probation by the Courts below. In this connection, the learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner is also an ex-army personnel with two school going children. He took me through the details of the five injuries as also the evidence of the doctor who had prepared the medico-legal report of the injured. He argued that injury No. 1 stated to have been received on the forehead by the throwing of a brick-bat from the roof of the house of the accused could not have been only skin deep if it had been received in the way suggested by the prosecution. The injury said to have been received with small Kirpan (Gatra) was on non-vital part of the body and possibility of the same having been self-inflicted or self-suffered could not be denied by the medical expert examined.

(3.) PROBATION . Accordingly, the revision is allowed to the extent that the punishment of imprisonment and fine imposed by the Court below is set aside. Instead, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on probation to appear and receive sentence during the course of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour The fine already deposited by the petitioner shall be converted into compensation and the same shall be paid to Amar Singh injured. Order accordingly.