IMPORTANT POINT
The Probation of Offenders Act prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment for first-time offenders of minor offences, allowing courts to grant probation instead of imprisonment.

JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant challenging the judgment dated 02.05.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2020, titled as Ayub and others vs. State of Haryana whereby the appeal filed by the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, had been partly allowed and while setting aside the said judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were ordered to be released on probation on furnishing personal bonds of peace and good behavior in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each for a period of one year.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Virender had got registered an FIR bearing No. 1397 dated 11.10.2014 against the private respondents under Sections 323, 325, 341, 34 of IPC at Police Station City Panipat with the allegations that the accused persons had wrongfully restrained the complainant and caused hurt to him as well as to Dharmender and Rajwant. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Charges against the accused persons were framed under Sections 323, 325 and 341 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses apart from placing on record some documentary evidence. Thereafter, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put before the accused, which they denied and stated that they would lead defence evidence. However, no defence evidence was led by them.

4. The trial Court, after appraising the entire material placed on record as well as after hearing the arguments addressed by the parties, held the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of one year. Aggrieved from the same, the accused persons had preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which was partly allowed by passing the impugned order and the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were ordered to be released on probation as mentioned above. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court, the petitioner, who was the complainant of the FIR, has come up before this Court by filing the present revision challenging the judgment of the appellate Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment passed by the appellate Court granting probation to the accused persons is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the appellate Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. It is further submitted that as many as 21 injuries were caused to three injured including complainant, which included grievous injury but the appellate Court had ignored the medical evidence and the testimony of PW-1 Dr. Rakesh and PW-2 Dr. Shalini Mittal and had also ignored the MLRs Ex. PW-2/A, PW-2/C and PW-2/D and had granted benefit of probation to the accused persons. It is therefore, argued that the appellate Court had erred in granting benefit of probation to the accused persons while partly allowing their appeal. Hence, it is urged that the revision petition deserved to be allowed and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned State counsel, while admitting the factual position, has also argued on the line of the petitioner and has submitted that the appellate Court has committed grave error in granting benefit of probation to the accused persons.

7. The accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are duly served but there is no representation on their behalf.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have also gone t