VIDYA NAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment and order dated 3.11.1992 and 14.11.1992 respectively, appellants were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 308/324/323/148/149 IPC. All the appellants were directed to undergo RI for six months on each count for commission of offences under Sections 148/323 read with Section 149 IPC. They were further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year for commission of offences under Sections 324/149 IPC. For commission of offences under Sections 308/149 IPC, they were directed to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month each.

(2.) IT was case of the prosecution that Laxmi-complainant is the daughter of injured Lal Singh. Lal Singh had kept a bullock and charged Rs. 30/- for mating a buffalo. On 19.12.1989 at 6.30 A.M. Hari Ram brought his buffalo to his house for mating. At that time, all the accused, who were also residents of the same village came there and protested on the ground that Hari Ram had brought buffalo through their fields. They were told that he had come through a public throghfare. This led to an altercation between the parties. In that process, appellant-accused had caused injuries to Lal Singh and Laxmi PWs.

(3.) MR . Lakhanpal, by referring to evidence on record, has stated that it is doubtful as to whether any offence is made out under Section 308 IPC. He further stated that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 19.12.1989. Trial came to an end in the year 1992 and since thereafter appeal is pending. During this period, appellants had suffered mentally and finally (financially ?) as well. They are the only bread winner of their families. If at this stage, they are ordered to go behind the bars, not only they but their families would also suffer. He further states that the appellants had reformed themselves and now are living as good citizens. They had not indulged themselves into any offence of such like nature. He further states that the occurrence had taken place without any motive and suddenly on a minor issue. They are not hardened criminals and also not previous convicts. Counsel also states that the appellants had undergone five months of imprisonment during trial and after conviction. By referring to above mentioned facts, counsel prays that the appellants be released on probation.