Judgment

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- These two appeals, by special leave are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 128-SP of 1984. The common respondents in the appeals were prosecuted for various offences in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. By judgment dated February 28, 1984 learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as follows :

"Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the part played by each of them I, hereby sentence Sukhbir, Sukhpal and Surat Singh accused to undergo R. I. for four years u/ s. 307/149 IPC. Each of Om Pal, Dhan Pal, Nannu and Siri Chand are ordered to undergo R. 1. for three years u/s. 307/149 IPC.

Each of the seven accused are further ordered to undergo R. I. for one year u/s. 148 IPC. two years R. I. u/s 325/149 IPC and one year R. I. u/s. 323/149 IPC.

Keeping in view the circumstances of the case. all the sentences shall run concurrently."

2. The accused appealed to the High Court challenging the conviction and sentence. The High Court by the judgment under appeals acquitted Sukhpal Singh and Surat Singh of all charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. The other accused who are respondents herein are also acquitted of the offence under S. 307/149 and S. 148 IPC. Their conviction and sentence under Ss. 325/149, 323/149 and S. 148 IPC are however, maintained. They are released on probation of good conduct. Each one of them, is ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to Joginder who was seriously injured in the incident. In default to pay the compensation they are directed to serve their sentence. The operative portion of the judgment runs like this :

"There is no previous history of enmity between the parties. The occurrence is the outcome of a sudden flare up. I think. these five appellants namely Sukhbir Singh. Dhanpal. Mannu. Siri Chand and Om Pal are entitled to benefit under S. 360 Cr.P.C. Consequently. I suspend their sentence under Ss. 325/149, 323/149 and S. 148 IPC and order that the appellants namely Sukhbir Singh, Dhan Pal. Mannu. Siri Chand and Om Pal be released on probation on their entering into bonds of Rs. 3,000/- each with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year, to the satisfaction of the trial court, undertaking to appear in the court to receive the sentence during the said period whenever called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. However, each one of the appellant would pay Rs. 2,500/- as compensation payable to Joginder injured. Compensation if not paid within two months, the appellants namely Sukhbir Singh, Dhanpal, Mannu Siri Chand and Om Pal would be called upon to serve their sentence. But for this modification, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

In view of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, no disqualification would attach to the appellants due to this conviction.

Sd/- K. P. S. Sandhu

Dt. November 13, 1984 Judge"

3. In these appeals, there is no serious dispute with regard to acquittal of Sukhpal Singh and Surat Singh. The prosecution case that they were armed with Barchha has not been proved. There was no incised injury on the victim or any of the prosecution witnesses. Their participation in the commission of crime therefore appears to be doubtful. The High Court was justified in acquitting them.

4. Counsel for the appellants are, however, very critical of the order of High Court with regard to the remaining accused. It is urged that the High Court was too much charitable to them. The intention of accused was obviously to commit murder of Joginder. Their acquittal under S. 307, IPC is characterised as perverse. At any rate, it is said that they ought not have been put on probation. It is an abuse of the process of Court. They should have been properly sentenced to terms of imprisonment and fine. It is also urged that Joginder has sustained permanent disability due to head injury and no amount of compensation would be adequate for him excep