GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned DAG, Punjab.

(2.) THE revisionists, Gurbachan Singh and Sukhdev Singh, both sons of Joginder Singh, were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti, by judgment and order dated 24.5.1995. The appeal against the conviction was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, by judgment and order dated 23.9.1996. They stand convicted under Sections 325/323 IPC and sentenced to suffer one year's RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months on the former count, whereas they were directed to suffer six months' RI on the second count. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has prayed that the revisionists be released on probation, being the first offenders. He has pointed out that in this occurrence, the revisionists are said to have been armed with lathi and accused of causing fracture of the back of right hand and wrist joint of the left hand. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 1.3.1992 and the dispute centered around the irrigation of the fields. It has also been alleged that both the revisionists were aged below 21 years at the time of occurrence of this case. The benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short "Act of 1958") can be extended to any person, who is found guilty of offences not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and further regard is to be had to the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and character of the offender. In the case of Ram Chander v. The State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 1036 Hansa v. State of Punjab, 1977 SCC (Crl) 550, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the prayer for giving benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the accused found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. In the case of Hansa (supra), conviction recorded was under Section 325 IPC with sentence of RI for one year. In addition to the conviction under Section 323 IPC, the conviction was also recorded under Section 323 IPC by the trial Court, but the same was set aside on bail by the High Court. The maximum sentence provided under Section 325 IPC was 7 years. In view of the law laid down in the case of Hansa (supra), in my considered view, the prayer of the revisionists for being given the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 seems to be justified in law. Consequently, the said prayer of the revisionists is allowed and having regard to the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, as also the character of the offenders, I deem it a fit case to release them on probation for a period of one year from the date of their release on filing a personal bond each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, i.e., the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, with one surety each to the satisfaction of the said Court, within two weeks from today. The sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the period of probation. During the period of probation the revisionists shall keep peace and be of good behavior. In the case of breach of any conditions of the bond, the revisionists shall appear before the trial Court to receive the sentence and in that case the sentence already undergone shall be remitted.