Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 175 dated 21.9.2000 registered under Sections 323/ 324/325/ 452 IPC at Police Station, Baghapurana, District Moga, on the allegations that he caused injuries to the complainant.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that FIR in question was recorded on the statement of Nachhattar Singh with the allegations that on 19.9.2000 at about 6.00 p.m. the petitioner under the influence of liquor entered his house and caused injuries with gandasa to him and Sarabjit Kaur. After considering the prosecution evidence on record, learned trial Court opined that the charges against the petitioner were proved and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo the following sentence: - In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and even his request for granting him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act"), was also declined. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the aforesaid offences, however, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the Criminal complainant -eye witness, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, he had faced the agony of trial before the Courts below for about eight years and further that he has four children to support and being the sole bread earner of the family should be extended the benefit of probation under the Act. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has already undergone actual imprisonment of about six months. He has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab,, 2006 (3) RCR (Cri) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004 (1) RCR (Cri) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, : 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana,, 2004 (3) RCR (Cri) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab,, 2004 (4) RCR (Cri) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana,, 2005 (3) RCR (Cri) 597.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the factum of long trial, the petitioner being first offender, sole bread earner of family with four children to support are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner.;