- (1.) The appellants who were convicted under Sections 148/149/147/332 read with Section 149 and were released on probation, giving a chance to each of them to reform themselves in terms of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as the accused-appellants were found to be below 21 years of age, have come up with the present appeal challenging the conviction and their release on probation.
(2.) Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for UT, Chandigarh. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that as per the case of the prosecution, it was only the Ist appellant-Pawan Kumar, who allegedly caused knife blow to the complainant. There is no specific role attributed to the other accused-appellants. It is his submission that the appellants may be acquitted of the aforesaid charges.
(3.) I have heard the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for UT, Chandigarh supporting the conviction of the accused and their release on probation. The complainant who was found to be an injured person at the hands of the accused-appellants had categorically deposed before the trial Court that the accused-appellants challenged him when they intruded into the boundary wall of Sarojinii Hall and Kasturba Hall Hostels and the Ist appellant-Pawan Kumar wielded a knife blow on the left thigh of complainant, while all other accused-appellants attacked him and delivered fist blows on his cheek.;