IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 27.10.2025 Dalbir Singh and others . . . Petitioners Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, AAG, Haryana.

****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment dated 15.01.2019, passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, affirming the judgment/order of conviction by trial Court on

19/22.12.2016.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26.06.2012, at about 5:30 p.m., the complainant was seated outside a room constructed in his agricultural field. At that time, accused-Bhisham, Sandeep, and Munna arrived at the spot on a motorcycle. Bhisham, armed with a gandhasi, inflicted a blow on the complainant’s right knee, whereas Munna and Sandeep, each carrying a lathi, caused injuries to his left wrist and left leg, respectively. In the meantime, co-accused Dalbir, Mandeep, and Pardeep also reached the scene and assaulted the complainant with lathis. When the complainant’s son and nephew attempted to intervene, they too were attacked. Dalbir struck his son on the left hand, while Pardeep inflicted a lathi blow on the right hand of the nephew. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the accused persons.

3. After completion of the investigation, a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted before the trial Court against the accused-petitioners. Upon finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 323, 324, and 325 of IPC were framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused-petitioners, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded false implication by the police. In their defence, they examined DW-1 Inder Panch and DW-2 Narinder.

5. Dissatisfied by the same, appeal was filed by the accused-petitioners, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.

6. Hence, the present revision petitions.

7. Learned counsel, at the very outset submits that the petitioners do not wish to press the revision petition on merits and confine their prayer to seeking the benefit of probation, in view of the circumstances that they are first-time offenders have no other earning members in their families, belong to the economically weaker section of society and no other case stands registered against them.

8. Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has rightly convicted the accused-petitioners and the said conviction has been duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present revision petitions.

9. Heard learned counsel on either side.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, establishing the guilt of all eight accused, who were accordingly convicted and sentenced as detailed in paragraph No. 1 above, as the record established the injuries suffered by the complainant party, as reflected in the medico-legal reports of Kalu, Jai Bhagwan, and Dharambir (Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, and Ex.PW6/D). The testimony of PW1, Head Constable Dharampal, the Investigating Officer, further corroborates the prosecution version and supports the police proceedings. The lower appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the material on record, affirmed the conviction, while dismissing the appeal. It is pertinent to note that the sentence of the accused-petitioners was suspended by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2019, subject to the condition of them depositi