SABINA, J. - (1.) APPELLANT has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 12.01.2012, whereby, respondent Nos.2 to 4 were ordered to be released on probation.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Appellate Court had erred in releasing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on probation. Complainant party had been inflicted injuries by the accused and, therefore, they were rightly sentenced to undergo imprisonment by the trial court. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.07.2003, complainant -appellant Ramesh had gone to his fields along with his wife Mukesh. At about 4.00 p.m. when the complainant reached the fields, then his brother Sant Ram, his wife Murti Devi and their son Satish @ Leelu started abusing them. Satish @ Leelu and Murti Devi were armed with kassi. Sant Ram caught hold of the complainant from behind and Satish @ Leelu gave a kassi blow on the left leg of the complainant as a result of which complainant fell down. Murti Devi gave a kassi blow on the right hand of the complainant. On hearing alarm raised by the complainant, his wife reached the spot and all the accused fled away from the spot. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 22.09.2011 and 24.09.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of respondent Nos.2 to 4 qua commission of offence punishable under Section 323, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Aggrieved against the said judgment/order, respondent Nos.2 to 4 preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 12.01.2012 upheld the conviction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 under Section 323, 324 and 506 IPC but had set aside the order of sentence qua imprisonment and ordered that respondent Nos.2 to 4 be released on probation. Para 17 of the impugned order reads as under: - "As regards the order of sentence, prayer made on behalf of the appellants is that they being first offenders and persons of the same family be granted concession of probation. As per the order of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - each under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - under Section 324 IPC. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that they facing protracted trial since 2003 and hence, they be granted the benefit of probation. For this reliance has been placed upon the case of Babu Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 753, Karnail Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal 502 and Jagir Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 525. Considering that appellant Satish @ Leela has been attributed one injury, the injury attributed upon appellant Murti Devi has not been proved as per medical evidence. As per the prosecution version, the blow has not been repeated and has been inflicted on the ankle and one on the hand. Moreover, the role on the part of appellant Sant Ram is that he had held the injured from the back. The appellants are facing trial since 2003. In my view, they all are members of the same family and are first offender. No useful purpose will be served by sending them to judicial custody. Taking support from the cases of Babu Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Karnail Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana (supra)and Jagir Singh Vs. The State of Punjab (supra) and prevailing circumstances, all the appellants are ordered to be released on probation on furnishing of probation bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/ - with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of trial court for a period of one year. The appellants shall pay compensation of Rs.5000/ - each to injured Ramesh under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from today and the said amount on realization shall be paid to the injured/complainant and in default, the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. In that case, trial court shall take measures to secure presence of appellants and execute order of the sentence. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby partly accepted. Trial court record be remitted back and file be consigned to records, after due compliance." In the present case, parties are closely related to each other. The Appellate Court has noticed that one injury was attributed to Satish @ Leelu, whereas, the injury attributed on Murti Devi had not been established by leading medical evidence. The accused were facing the trial since the year 2003 and were first offenders. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the Appellate Court while ordering the release of respondent Nos.2 to 4 on probation are sound reasons and call for no interference. Dismissed.;