High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana - CRR-228-2005  RD-P&H 1956 (24 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision : 21-3-2006
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
Present: Mr. SS Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Virender Singh, J.
The petitioners-herein were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri vide judgement dated 31.7.2002 under Sections 323/149, 325/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Kanti was, however, released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety of the like amount. The other petitioners were sentenced substantively as under: Under Sections
RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month.
Under Section 325 IPC RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of which to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months.
However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the said judgement of conviction and sentence, they filed an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar (at Jagadhri) vide impugned judgement dated 10-11-2004 upheld their conviction.
However, all of them ( except Kanti-already released on probation by the trial Court itself) were ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year. They were directed to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each.
The amount of fine imposed upon them by the trial Court under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was converted into costs of proceedings. They were further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- each as compensation payable to Raj Kumar injured/complainant.
It is worth mentioning here that Raj Kumar injured/complainant has also field a Criminal Revision ( No. 360 of 2005) showing his grievance against Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2005 2
the order of probation and the said revision petition stands dismissed by this Court vide a detailed judgment of even date.
I have heard both the sides at length and and have gone through both the impugned judgements minutely.
Mr. Dinarpur has not been able to pin-point any infirmity either on facts or law, which may call for interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. In my considered view, the impugned judgements are well reasoned ones, based on proper appreciation of entire evidence. Each aspect has been discussed by the learned trial Court before coming to a categorical finding that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges of Section 323/324/325/148 read with Section 149 IPC against the petitioners. The lower appellate Court has also rescanned the entire evidence before confirming the conviction.
I do not find any reason to disturb the said findings. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is dismissed.
March 21, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.