The court upheld the benefit of probation based on the nature of injuries and the absence of other criminal antecedents, finding no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' judgments.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 19.04.2022, passed by learned Upper Session Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Appeal No.33/2018 (CIS No.78/2018) whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 20.02.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No.370/2017 whereby the learned trial court convicted the respondents No.2 & 3 for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC but gave benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. The respondents No.2 & 3 were directed to be released on probation provided each of them furnishes personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-each to keep peace and maintain good behaviour. They were further directed not to repeat the offence and to appear and receive sentence when ever called upon to do so during the period of one year. The trial court also imposed Rs.2,000/-(Rs.1,000/-each) as litigation cost upon the respondents No.2 & 3. By this revision petition, the petitioner-complainant has made challenge only to the extent of benefit of probation given to the respondents No.2 & 3 by the courts below.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 10.01.2001, complainant Vidhya Devi submitted a Parcha Bayan to the effect that when she was alone at her home and was brooming in the porch of the house, the accused persons threatened to kill her while they were standing on the terrace. The house of the accused persons is adjacent to the house of the complainant. The accused persons jumped into the porch armed with Kassi and Balli and caused injuries to the complainant. On shouting, complainant’s family members came to rescue her, upon which the accused persons ran away. On this Parcha Bayan, a case for offences under sections 307, 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC was registered by the Police against the accused-persons and commenced investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed only against the accused Prithvi Raj and Jisukh. During the trial, accused Prithvi Raj expired and the trial court abated the proceedings against accused Prithvi. Thereafter, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial court took cognizance against accused Sanjay. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed against the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC, which they denied and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and got exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents No.2 & 3 were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined.

5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 20.02.2018 convicted the respondents No.2 & 3 for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC, but extended the benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to them and imposed Rs.2,000/-(Rs.1,000/-each) as litigation cost upon the respondents No.2 & 3.

6. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, both the petitioner-complainant and accused-respondents No.2 & 3 preferred two separate appeals before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.04.2022. Hence, this revision petition only on behalf of the petitioner-complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant argued that accused gave Kassi blow to the petitioner-complainant and this fact has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Yet, the trial court as well as the appellate court did not consider these aspect of the matter and despite conviction for aforesaid offences, they have not awarded any sentence to the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 and instead given benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, which is perverse and illegal. Thus, i