- (1.) FIR No.180 dated 21.10.1997 under Section 148, 323, 324, 325,149 IPC, has been registered at Police Station -Salhawas, against respondent Nos.2 to 7 on the complaint of the appellant. However, the challan was presented against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 only. Later on, respondent No.7 was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C to face trial along with other accused by the trial Court. However, he did not appear before the trial Court and was declared as an Proclaimed Offender vide its order dated 17.01.2005.
(2.) The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Jhajjar vide judgment dated 06.11.2006 convicted the respondents under Sections 148/323/324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- imposed on each of the accused for the commission of the offence under Section 148 IPC. In case of nonpayment of fine, the accused were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. The accused were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- was imposed on each of the accused for the commission of the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and in case of non-payment of fine, the accused were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. The accused were also punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed on each of the accused for the commission of the offence, under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and in case of non-payment of fine, the accused were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. All the substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) It may also be noticed that fine as imposed by the trial Court was paid by the respondents. On appeal filed by all the accused (except Roop Singh-respondent No.7), the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, maintained the conviction of the respondents-accused, however, granted them the benefit of probation of Offender's Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C. The relevant part of the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, reads thus:- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties and while taking into consideration the circumstances of the acused, nature of the injuries caused to the injured and within the the appellants are the first offenders and they had already undergone agony of the prolonged trial for more than 11 years, I am of the view that it is a fit case, where the benefit of Probation of Offender Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C. may be given. I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellants are sentenced to substantive imprisonment. They are released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount for a period of six months from the day, they furnish bonds. During the period of probation they would be of good behaviour and keep peace. It is ordered accordingly. However, this order grant of probation would not entail any disqualification for attaining any employment of public servant because accused were not convicted for the offence of moral turpitude. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the same would intact. However, the amount of fine of Rs.4500/- be given to the injured equally as a token of compensation for the injuries sustained by them. Requisite probation bonds furnished, accepted and attested. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Further compliance of order shall e made at the instruction of the Magistrate.";