The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the principles of reformation and leniency in sentencing.

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - Vide judgment and order dated 3.11.1992 and 14.11.1992 respectively, appellants were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 308/324/323/148/149 Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were directed to undergo RI for six months on each count for commission of offences under Sections 148/323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. They were further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year for commission of offences under Sections 324/149 Indian Penal Code. For commission of offences under Sections 308/149 Indian Penal Code, they were directed to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month each.

2. It was case of the prosecution that Laxmi-complainant is the daughter of injured Lal Singh. Lal Singh had kept a bullock and charged Rs. 30/- for mating a buffalo. On 19.12.1989 at 6.30 A.M. Hari Ram brought his buffalo to his house for mating. At that time, all the accused, who were also residents of the same village came there and protested on the ground that Hari Ram had brought buffalo through their fields. They were told that he had come through a public throghfare. This led to an altercation between the parties. In that process, appellant-accused had caused injuries to Lal Singh and Laxmi PWs.

3. It is not necessary to refer to further details of this case as Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, counsel appearing for the appellants, has confined his arguments regarding quantum of sentence only.

4. Mr. Lakhanpal, by referring to evidence on record, has stated that it is doubtful as to whether any offence is made out under Section 308 Indian Penal Code. He further stated that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 19.12.1989. Trial came to an end in the year 1992 and since thereafter appeal is pending. During this period, appellants had suffered mentally and finally (financially ?) as well. They are the only bread winner of their families. If at this stage, they are ordered to go behind the bars, not only they but their families would also suffer. He further states that the appellants had reformed themselves and now are living as good citizens. They had not indulged themselves into any offence of such like nature. He further states that the occurrence had taken place without any motive and suddenly on a minor issue. They are not hardened criminals and also not previous convicts. Counsel also states that the appellants had undergone five months of imprisonment during trial and after conviction. By referring to above mentioned facts, counsel prays that the appellants be released on probation.

5. This prayer has vehemently been opposed by State counsel. He, by referring to the evidence on record, states that the punishment awarded to the appellants was in proportion to the offence committed by them. They had caused injuries to the PWs without any justification. He further states that the punishment awarded by the trial Court is very lenient and because of their conduct, they do not deserve further leniency from this Court. He prays that appeal, having no substance, be dismissed.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

6. It is apparent from the record that a cross-case for causing injuries to two of the appellants was also registered against the opposite party. After trial, Rajinder Singh, Lal Singh, Sukhram Lal, Smt. Laxmi and Smt. Saraswati were acquitted vide judgment dated 3.11.1992. This clearly indicates that fight had erupted between the parties, without any motive.

7. Purpose of criminal law justice is to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society and also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself.

8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admin.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 had opined that in appropriate cases, leniency be shown and opportunity is required to be given to an accused to reform himself by adopting a reformative approach.