← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/4709/2017dismissed

Sandeep v. Devender And ORS

2019-03-28Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain2 pages

-1CRR-4709 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRR-4709 of 2017 Date of Decision: 28.03.2019 Sandeep ....Petitioner

Versus

Devender and others ....Respondents CRR-97 of 2018 Sandeep ....Petitioner

Versus

Om Parkash and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) By this common judgment, I shall dispose of above-titled two revision petitions, whereby petitioner-complainant has laid challenge to judgment dated 03.10.2017, whereby Appellate Court maintaining the conviction of private respondents under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, modified their imprisonment from one year to releasing them on probation on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `1,00,000/- with one surety each in like amount for one year to keep peace, harmony and be of good behaviour during this period and granting compensation of `50,000/- to the petitioner-complainant. Heard.

RAVINDER SINGH 2019.04.02 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Having given thoughtful consideration to the submission made by

-2CRR-4709 of 2017 learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds the instant revision completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to follow. Appellate Court has power to release a person on probation, if it deems fit. In the instant case, Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 03.10.2017 in its wisdom, granted probation to private respondents while maintaining their conviction under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, in the manner as narrated above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that during this period or thereafter, private respondents ever committed any overt act, violating the conditions of their probation bonds or committed any other crime. Moreover, private respondents have faced protracted trial for nine years. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.

In view of discussion above, revisions are dismissed. (RAMENDRA JAIN) March 28, 2019 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2019.04.02 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document