The aim of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act is to prevent offenders from being committed to jail, serving the dual purpose of deterrence and reformation.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, confirming and upholding the judgment and order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot, whereby respondent No.2 Sukhjinder Kaur was acquitted while respondent No.1 Balraj Singh and respondent No.3 Yadvinder Singh were convicted under Section 323 IPC and released on probation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.31 dated 14.03.2010 was registered under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, on the basis of statement of complainant Gurpreet Singh wherein he stated that on 13.03.2010 he had gone to his fields and at about 4.00 PM, he saw that respondent No.1 Balraj Singh armed with gandasa, respondent No.2 Sukhjinder Kaur armed with gandasa, Teja Singh (juvenile) armed with wooden stick and respondent No.3 Yadwinder Singh were standing outside their house and dismantling the khaal (water channel) and when the complainant refrained them from doing so, Sukhjinder Kaur attacked him and gave gandasa blow on the left side of forehead of complainant, while Balraj Singh raised lalkara and asked his son Yadvinder Singh to bring rifle from his house. In the meantime, said Balraj Singh gave blow with reverse side of gandasa which hit on the left arm of complainant. Teja Singh gave stick blows which hit on the right side of waist and left leg of complainant. On hearing the hue and cry raised by the complainant, Jasvir Singh neighbor of Balraj Singh came out along with Pritam Singh and both of them rescued the complainant and they also caught hold of rifle from the hands of Yadwinder Singh, who reached there armed with rifle. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot for his treatment. The motive behind the occurrence was that Balraj Singh felt offended when the complainant stopped him from dismantling khaal (water channel).

3. During investigation the police inspected the place of occurrence and the accused were arrested and finally the challan was presented against juvenile offender in the court of Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board while the challan against respondent Nos.1 to 3 was filed in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate.

4. The trial Court framed charges under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC against respondents No.1 to 3, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined PW1 complainant Gurpreet Singh, PW2 Jasvir Singh (eye-witness), PW3 Pritam Singh (eye-witness), PW4 ASI Jarnail Singh, PW5 Dr. Anmol Grover, PW6 Dr. Shilekh Mittal and PW7 ASI Sukhdev Singh.

6. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the entire incriminating evidence was put to them but they denied the same and pleaded innocence. However, they had not lead any evidence in their defence.

7. After hearing the learned APP for the State and the defence counsel, the trial Court acquitted respondent No.2 Sukhjinder Kaur but convicted Balraj Singh and Yadwinder Singh under Section 323 IPC and granted them concession of probation with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behavior for a period of one year and further burdened them with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- each. The respondents complied with the said order dated 11.09.2014.

8. Being not satisfied, complainant Gurpreet Singh filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the trial Court dated 11.09.2014. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 14.03.2016, after hearing both the parties.

9. Being dis-satisfied, petitioner-complainant Gurpreet Singh has filed the present revision petition alleging that respondent No.2 Sukhjinder Kaur was wrongly acquitted by the Courts below and further to sentence respondents