RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS ' learned counsel submitted that no doubt on 10.3.1998 while notice was issued to the respondent-state qua petitioner No. 5, only, the learned Single Judge has not at all adverted to his request that petitioners are solely challenging the quantum of sentence also. Therefore, notice with regard to other petitioners-accused was not issued to the respondent-State. He submits that petitioners are not challenging their convection under sections 323/325/149/148 and 506 IPC but they are only challenging the sentence. They have been sentenced to R.I. for three months each under Sections 323/149 IPC, R.I. for three months each under Section 148 IPC, R.I. for six months each under Section 506 IPC for six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 325/149 IPC and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one month each. The jail sentence was to run concurrently.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' learned counsel submitted that petitioners are young persons. They have already undergone 91 days of jail sentence. If they are sentenced to jail to undergo the remaining sentence that will be a blot on their career and will spoil their life in future. He also submitted that without any motive at the spur of the moment, this incident took place. In this incident accused gave various injuries to the complainant. Petitioners are facing this trial right from 1992. They have already suffered much agony on that count. He also submits that accused persons are first offenders. Therefore, he prays that instead of jail sentence they be given the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) BEFORE deciding this petition, it is necessary to advert to the facts of the case.