Amrit Lal And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

R.C. Khulbe, J

This appeal, preferred by the appellants u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/III F.T.C. Dehradun, in Session Trial No. 147 of 2000, State vs. Sanjay and others and S.T. No. 278 of 2000, State vs. Satish, whereby the Court below convicted the appellants/accused under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo one year and six months' R.I. each along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

Facts, in nutshell, are that on 28.05.1999 one Bharat Singh S/o Nand Ram lodged a written report with the police of P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun with the allegation that he is the resident of Badonwala, Arcadia Grant, Derhadun and he is posted as Head Master in Primary School, East Hopetown. On 27.05.1999 at 6:00 PM, his younger son-Arun was working in his field. At that time Amrit Lal, Satish his brother Bhatt, Sanjay Rathor and Prem Darshan, Dehradun came there and started beating his son without any rhyme and reason, as a result of which, he received grievous injuries. Somehow, he reached the house drenched with blood. Seeing his critical condition, his other son was taking him to Government Hospital, Premnagar for treatment and also to lodge the report. At that time Deepak @ Bhuri, Sany Rathor and Khyali Ram and threatened him that if he lodges the report against them, he will face the same consequence and after hurling filthy abuses started giving him knife blows. This incident took place at Premnagar at 9:00 PM. On raising alarm, these persons fled away from the spot leaving his son Parvesh in injured state, who was got admitted by the local inhabitants in Doon Hospital and the other son Arun was got medically examined in Government Hospital, Premnagar. Prayed that legal recourse be taken against these persons.

The I.O. during the course of investigation, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan; obtained the permission for prosecuting the appellants; and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants u/s 324/34 of IPC.

The case was, accordingly, committed to the court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Learned Sessions Court, accordingly, framed the Charge against the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses, namely, PW1 Arun, PW2 Pravesh Kumar, PW3 Bharat Singh, PW4 Dr. G.P. Dimri, PW5- Dr. P.K. Nautiyal, PW6 Constable 56 CP Mohan Singh, PW7 S.I. R.P. Purohit and PW-8 Dr. Rakesh Goyal.

Thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations made against them. However, in defence the accused persons have examined DW-1 CP Sandeep Kumar, DW-2 Prashant Thapa and DW-3 Amrit Lal.

After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court, vide the judgment, under challenge, has convicted and sentenced the accused, as afore-stated. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record.

Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the Court below under Section 324/34 of IPC are perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also does not want to lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the appellants may be extended the benefit of being the first-offender, the appellants are only the bread earner of the family and he may be released on probation by giving them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is also argued by learned counsel for the appellants there is no criminal history against them.

Mr. A.K. Sah, learned A.G.A appearing for the State, admits that he has not received any report about the criminal antecedents of the appellants, and admitted that the appellants are the first-time offender.

In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola" reported in 2001 SCC (Cri.) 2, 897, in paragraph no.7, has held as under:

"7. Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as a useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to deleterious effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act."

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under:

"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct

When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: "Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if 5 any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. 5. The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."

Section 4 of the Act would demonstrate that if a person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, in that event, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, the Court, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, may release such person on probation of good conduct, on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, for a period not exceeding three years. Before releasing the offender, on probation, the Court must satisfy itself that offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. The Court before passing the order of release on probation may also call report of the Probation Officer. The Court while releasing on probation may also direct that accused shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer for a period not less than one year.

A careful reading of Section 4 of the Act would reveal that if the offence is punishable for a period more than 2 years, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, admonition of sentence shall not be required and if person, released on probation, is found involved in any offence during the period of probation or otherwise, is found behaving in violation of condition of bond, he shall be directed to serve out the sentence awarded by the court. In other words, while on probation, such person should not involve himself in subsequent offence or must honour the condition of his bond / surety bond and if he breaches the same, he has to serve out the sentence awarded by the Court.

In the present case the appellants are the first-time offender. The incident seems to have taken place 20 years ago, that too, by chance and all of a sudden, and it also appears that the accused had not planned to commit the crime.

Therefore, considering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, no useful purpose would be served to send the appellants to jail to serve out the remaining sentence. Rather, in the opinion of the Court, they should be released on probation in order to reform themselves.

The present appeal, thus, stands partly allowed. The conviction part of the appellants- Amrit Lal, Rajender @ Bhatt and Satish under Sections 324/34 IPC are left intact. However, as far the sentence part is concerned, it is directed that the appellants Amrit Lal, Rajender @ Bhatt and Satish shall be released on probation for a period of two years on furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court with one surety each. The fine Rs. 1,000/- will be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, to the court concerned. The Judge concerned shall be at liberty to impose such conditions while executing the bond which he feels fit in accordance with the law. It goes without saying that if accused/ appellants fail to observe good conduct and behaviour during probation or are found violating any condition, to be imposed; the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bonds calling the accused-appellants to serve out the remaining sentence. The appellant Amrit Lal, Rajender @ Bhatt and Satish shall appear before the Trial Court on or before 22.11.2019 for compliance.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.