265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.02.2026 HARWINDER SINGH @ SONU AND ANOTHER ...REVISIONISTS V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the revisionists.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur has been upheld and the revisionists were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years in case bearing FIR No.39 dated 11.06.2014 registered under Sections 325/323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Behrampur.

2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to the limited extent that the revisionists be released on probation.

3. Prayer is accepted.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Darbara Singh stated that on 07.06.2014 at about 06:00 AM, he went to his fields and when he was returning and reached near the house of Balbir Singh, he was already standing outside his house armed with stick and raised lalkara and co-accused, Harwinder Singh and one unknown person came out from the house having wooden handle of spade and stick. All of them gave blows with their respective weapons to the complainant and when his brother went to rescue the complainant all the accused persons gave blows upon him also. Hence, FIR (supra) was registered.

5. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionists vide judgment and order dated 10.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the revisionists preferred an appeal, before learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists contends that the learned Courts below have fallen into grave error by not considering the release of revisionists on probation, as revisionist No.1 is 87 years old and both the revisionists are not previous convicts and are first time offenders and offences in the present case are punishable upto seven years. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana, CRR No.107 of 2011 (O & M); Suman and another vs. State of Haryana, CRR No.434 of 2014 (O & M); Inder vs. State of Haryana, CRR No.44 of 2020 and Virender vs. State of Haryana and others, CRR No.51 of 2023 (O & M) and prayed for grant of probation to the revisionists.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel has produced status report by way of affidavit dated 08.02.2026 of Sh. Rajinder Singh Manhas, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur and custody certificates of the revisionists, which are taken on record. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionists and submits that they have been convicted by the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. Moreover, the conviction has been upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the present FIR was registered on 11.06.2014 and revisionists are facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 11 years. Since their conviction, the revisionists have grown into law-abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. Moreover, the revisionist No.1 is 87 years of age and both the revisionists have already undergone custody period of more than one month and they are not the previous convicts.

9. In Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to prioritize reformation and rehabilit