MAYA BAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 24th July, 1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, whereby each of the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default whereof to undergo further RI for one month under Section 326 IPC; RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default whereof to undergo further RI for 15 days, under Section 325/34 IPC and RI for six months under Section 323/34 IPC. However, Maya Bai and Samri were convicted and sentenced under Section 326 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC, though the sentence was the same. The judgment dated 8th October, 1991 whereby the petitioners' appeal against the aforementioned order of conviction and sentence was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, is also under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) THE prosecution machinery was brought into motion on 26th December, 1986 with a complaint that at about 11 AM Krishan Lal along with Naranjan Singh was going to village Arniwala and when they reached near the Dhani of Joginder Singh, the petitioners herein, armed with Kasia, Dang etc. way laid them and upon a Lalkara by Maya Bai, Mangal Singh-the petitioner allegedly caused a Kapa blow on the front side of head of Krishan Lal while Datar Singh petitioner gave a Kasia blow on the left side of this head and Samri- petitioner inflicted a Dang blow on his left shoulder. Maya Bai the petitioner allegedly gave brickbats hitting Krishan Lal on his left arm and left leg. Upon raising of alarm by Krishan Lal, Naranjan Singh and Surjit Singh rescued him from the clutches of the petitioners, who are stated to have fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Krishan Lal injured was medico- legally examined; FIR was registered and the petitioners were prosecuted which ultimately culminated into their conviction and sentence, referred to above. Their appeal having been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that they are before this Court.

(3.) AT the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that since there are concurrent findings of fact in relation to the petitioners' guilt and consequential conviction and the same being based upon appreciation of oral evidence on record, he will not be able to persuade this Court to tinker with those findings of fact on account of limited scope of interference by a revisional Court. He, however, strenuously contends that having regard to the facts that (i) the occurrence took place in the year 1986 and the petitioners have been subjected to protracted trial for almost three years; (ii) the sword of pending appeal and/or revision has remained close to their neck for over a period of 16 years; (iii) in this long spell of over 16 years, there is not a single instance of involvement of the petitioners in any criminal activity; and (iv) they have led a peaceful life in the village and do not have strained relations with the complainant party, it will be too iniquitous to send them behind bars at this stage, therefore, it is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.