Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - Challenge in the present criminal revision is to the judgment dated 25.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of probation releasing respondents no.2 to 5 on probation have been upheld.

2. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of instant revision are to the effect that on 18.03.2006, complainant-Gurcharan Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that on 16.03.2006, at about 7.00 P.M, he was returning from his fields and when reached near the street nearby his house, he was encountered by Gurmej Singh son of Balbir Singh armed with dang, Bittu Singh son of Piara Singh armed with gandasi, Shanka Singh son of Joga Singh armed with iron rod and Surjit Singh son of Piara Singh empty handed. Out of them, Surjit Singh raised lalkara that he(complainant) be taught lesson for stopping them for excavating earth from their land. In the meanwhile, Bittu Singh son of Piara Singh inflicted gandasi blow upon his left bicep. Shortly thereafter, Shainka Singh gave a rod blow which fell upon right hand little finger and thereafter Gurmej Singh son of Balbir Singh gave a dang blow upon his right side of the chest. Again Gurmej Singh hit him with dang on left shoulder. He raised hue and cry which attracted his son Balwinder Singh and Mangal Singh who came from their house and rescued him from the clutches of the accused who immediately ran away alongwith their respective weapons. Thereafter, his son brought him to their home and called their relative Baggu Singh who arranged a vehicle and removed him to Civil Hospital, Mamdot. He stated that motive behind the occurrence is that he is having a litigation with Bahal Singh son of Khanda Singh regarding land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas wherein the lessee had tried to remove earth from the said land but he stopped them from doing so. He maintained that Bahal Singh is grandfather of Bittu Singh and Surjit Singh and paternal uncle of Gurmej Singh. Therefore, the accused had caused injuries to him. After recording the statement, ruqa was sent for registration of FIR. Site plan was prepared. On receipt of X-ray report, Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) was added. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.

3. On finding prima facie case, the accused were chargesheeted under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC and were charge-sheeted accordingly, to which they pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW 1 complainant-Gurcharan Singh, PW 2 Balwinder Singh and PW 3 Dr. Balkar Singh. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed by the Court order, vide order dated 05.01.2011.

5. Statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) were recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in their defence.

6. The trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2012, convicted all the accused under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC, however, instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, they were released on probation for a period of one year and further to compensate the complainant and the exchequer of the State, they were also ordered to pay the costs of Rs. 2000/- each i.e. total Rs.8,000/- and out of that sum of Rs.8,000/-, it was directed to disburse Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation and the balance of that Rs.1,000/- was to be remitted to the exchequer of the State. The trial Court also held that conviction of respondents no.2 to 5 for the offence under Section 325 IPC is not sustainable due to non-examination of radiologist.

7. Against that, the petitioner preferred app