IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court upheld the conviction under IPC but granted probation, emphasizing the absence of criminal history and the protracted trial as mitigating factors.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in Appeal No. 78/2018 whereby, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction against the respondents for offence under Section 341, 323, 325 IPC passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 57/2000, granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 & 5 of Probation of Offenders Act.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant lodged a written report before SHO, Police station Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar to the effect that on 01.02.2000 when he alongwith his father were going to the school with regard to transfer of his father, at that time, Ram Kumar Patwari and his son Vijendra Kumar armed with lathi attacked them and inflicted injuries to father.

3. On this report, the FIR was registered and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondent for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused respondent for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and examined DW-1 Jagdish in defence.

5. After conclusion of trial, the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sriganganagar convicted the accused respondent for offences mentioned above vide judgment dated 22.05.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar. The appellate court while partly allowing the appeal, upheld the conviction of accused under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC vide judgment dated 04.06.2022 but granted them benefit of probation under Section 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

6. Counsel for the complainant petitioner submits that although the appellate court upheld the conviction of accused respondents for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC but committed an error in granting benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation Act and adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondents but the appellate court has adopted a lenient view without any valid reason. It is argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there was no occasion whatsoever to take a lenient view towards respondent no. 2. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be adequately punished for the alleged offences.

7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material on record.

8. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has convicted the accused respondent on the basis of statement of the witnesses so also the injury report of injured. The courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, looking to the fact that the respondents accused are facing protracted trial so also mental and physical agony since 2000 so also there are no criminal antecedents against the respondent, the appellate court has granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

9. After considering the evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate court has not committed any error in convicting the accused respondent and granting benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act inasmuch as the injuries upon the body of injured are on non-vital parts of the body and the respondent no. 2 has been facing protracted trial so also mental and physical agony since 2000.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the