JUDGMENT
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 30.4.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellants for offence Under Section 307/34 I.P.C. but convicted them for offence Under Sections 323 and 325/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them as under:
Conviction Under Section Sentence awarded
323 I.P.C. 6 month's R.I.
325/34 I.P.C. 2 years' R.I. and a fine of 500/-
each in default to further
undergo 6 months' R.I.
both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
(i) P.W. 7 Gurdeep Singh gave parcha bayan Ex.P/18 oh 11.1.1986 before ASI Mohan Singh of Police Station, Anoopgarh stating that on 10.1.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. when, he was returning from Ramsinghpur, at that time he went to satisfy the call of nature and from there he was coming towards Railway Station and there both the accused appellants met him having Lathis in their hands. They cried that enemy had came and he should be put to death. The accused appellant Sarjeet Singh inflicted a Lathi blow on his head and another accused Sucha Singh also gave injury by Lathi. Thereafter the accused appellants ran away and he remained there for whole night. On the next day, when the people came there they took him to the hospital.
3. On this Parcha Bayan Ex.P/18, police chalked out regular F.I.R. Ex.P/19 and started investigation.
4. During investigation P.W.7 Gurdeep Singh was got medically examined and his injury report is Ex.P/1 which shows that in all he received 17 injuries on his person and his X-ray report is Ex.P/20 which shows that he received fracture in second meta carpal bone and through Ex.P/2, the doctor further opined that these injuries were not dangerous to life.
5. On 6.7.1987, charge was framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for offence Under Section 307/34 I.P.C. against the accused appellants. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge through his judgment and order dated 30.4.1988 acquitted the accused appellant for offence Under Section 307/34 I.P.C. but convicted them for offence Under Sections 323 and 325/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them as stated above.
7. Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.
8. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the accused appellants has not assailed the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar by his Judgment dated 30.4.1988, but It has been argued on behalf of the accused appellants that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused appellants should be released on probation.
9. I have heard both.
10. Since findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar against the accused appellants for offence Under Sections 325/34, and 323 I.P.C. vide his judgment dated 30.4.1988 have not been challnged, therefore, they are liable to be confirmed one and the appeal of the accused appellants against their conviction is liable to be dismissed.
11. Looking to the fact that the incident took place on 10.1.1986 and more than 16 years have elapsed and this period is enough to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and it would not be proper now to send the accused appellants to jail after such long time for offence Under Sections 323 and 325/34 I.P.C. and it would be in the interest of justice that the accused appellants should be released on probation. However, it would be proper that some compensation should also be awarded to the injured P.W.7 Gurdeep Singh.
12. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons the appeal of the accused appellants Sarjeet Singh and Sucha Singh is partly allowed in the following manner:
(i) The conviction of accused appellants for offence Under Sections 325/34, and 323 I.P.C. recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 30.4.1988 is maintained and the appeal of the accused appellants against their conviction is dismissed.
(ii) However, sentence awarded to the accused appellants Sarjeet Singh and Sucha Singh by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide order dated 30.4.1988 is set aside and instead of sentencing the accused appellants for the aforesaid offence, I direct that they be released on probation Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- only with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar within a period of three months from today and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year.
(iii) I further direct that accused appellants shall also pay Rs. 3000/-each as compensation to P.W. 7 Gurdeep Singh. For depositing the said amount in the trial Court, the accused appellants are granted 3 months’ time from today. After deposited the said amount, the same shall be paid to the injured P.W.7 Gurdeep Singh.