Ram Sawrup v. State Of Haryana & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION:-17.01.2019 RAM SAWRUP ...PETITIONER...

V.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS...

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this revision, challenge has been laid to order dated 02.11.2016 of the first appellate court, whereby accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 were released on probation.

In nutshell, private respondents No.2 to 4 were booked, tried and convicted in FIR No.345 dated 29.12.2013, under Sections 323, 325, 452 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC by the trial court vide judgment of conviction dated 26.07.2016, on the allegations that in the evening of 28.12.2013, they gave beatings to the complainant, his wifeKrishna Devi and son Sunder Pal. Consequently, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months under Sections 323, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and one and half years under Sections 325, 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, vide order of sentence dated 26.07.2016.

Being aggrieved, private respondents approached the first appellate court, who affirming the judgment of the trial court, holding private respondents guilty under Sections 323, 325, 452 & 506 read with Section 34 IPC, released them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount, while directing them to pay compensation of `5000/- each totalling `15,000/-, to the complainant within 10 days, vide impugned judgment dated 02.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that compensation awarded by the first appellate court to the petitioner is very meagre. First appellate court had failed to appreciate that petitioner had remained admitted in hospital for around 15 days for a fracture in his leg caused by private respondents. After having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds the instant petition completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to follow:- 1.

Private respondents were released by the first appellate court vide judgment dated 02.11.2016 on probation of good conduct for a period of one year. Since, then more than two years have passed, but nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner as to whether the private respondents ever violated terms and conditions of their probation bond or repeated aforesaid act disturbing law and peace

or ever indulge in any criminal activity.

2.

While granting probation to private respondents, first appellate court took care of the interest and right of the petitionercomplainant, inasmuch as, he was granted compensation of `15,000/-, so to be payable by the private respondents.

3.

The first appellate court, in its wisdom, was empowered and had a legal right to release the private respondents on probation. Therefore, it has not exceeded its jurisdiction or has not acted beyond its jurisdiction.

4.

This Court, being revisional court has a very limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised on 3 following reasons:- (i) if the court below has exceeded it jurisdiction; (ii) has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and; (iii) has not exercised it jurisdiction diligently. No such circumstances could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to this Court.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to prove on record that how, and in what manner the first appellate court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally in releasing the private respondents on probation, except that inadequate compensation has been granted to the petitioner.

Considering over all facts and circumstances, awarding of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the petitioner cannot be termed as inadequate. Therefore, the impugned judgment of first appellate court dated 02.11.2016, being perfectly legal, does not warrant any

interference.

Dismissed.

CRM-14423-2017 Since, the main petition is dismissed on merits, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 17.01.2019 (RAMENDRA JAIN) sonika JUDGE whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No whether reportable:

Yes/No