Gulzari Lal vs State of Haryana

M.L. Koul, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.7.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar and the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 13.12.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar.

The brief facts which have given rise to this revision are that accused Gulzari Lal, Satbir alias Satyawan (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) fell upon the complainant who was washing his hands on the tap outside the area of village Panghal. They caused lathi blows on the person of the complainant who raised alarm which attracted PW Rase Singh and Basau Ram on the spot. On seeing them the accused ran away.

On trial the allegations made by the complainant were fully established and after fullfledged trial the petitioners were convicted both under Sections 323 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one month each under Sections 323/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months each under Sections 325/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ each, in default of payment of fine each of the petitioners was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month.

Aggrieved of the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. The learned appellate Court while sifting and evaluating the evidence on the basis of the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses was fully satisfied that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court was correct.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find any meterial before him to differ with the finding of the trial Magistrate. In his observation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the petitioners are not at all entitled to the benefit of probation of good conduct for the justice will be defeated if such a relief is granted to them for the injuries inflicted by them were of serious nature and those were caused to an old and infirm man of 84 years who is the complainant in the matter. The old man had to remain bed ridden under constant pain and suffering due to fracture of his bones caused by the petitioners. According to him, the learned trial Magistrate has not provided adequate punishment to the petitioners while considering the gravity of the offence with which they were tried and convicted. However, considering the family background of the petitioners, the appellate court did not interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial Court.

No illegality or impropriety has been committed by both the courts below, rather the sentence awarded by the learned trial court is inadequate. As the first appellate court in its wisdom has not interfered with the term of sentence awarded by the trial Court, therefore, this Court also does not like to interfere with the quantum of sentence recorded by the trial Court. In the circumstances of the case as explained by the appellate Court, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of probation. Hence this revision petition fails and is dismissed.