Darshan Singh vs The State of Haryana

M.M. Punchhi, J.—The Appellant, Darshan Singh, was one of the four who were convicted u/s 397, Indian Penal Code, but he was also additionally convicted u/s 25 of the Arms Act. Two of them preferred Criminal Appeal No. 260-SB of 1982 in this Court which was disposed of by me on August 30, 1983. I had altered the conviction of those two accused from one u/s 397, Indian Penal Code, to Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and reduced their sentence to the period already undergone. The Appellant did not join his co-aceused in then filing his appeal. It is as late as on March 7, 1986, that he filed the present appeal moving an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the same. Decision in Criminal Appeal No. 260-SB of 1982 was pressed into service to seek some relief in the appeal. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted and ordered to be listed out of turn today.

It has to be decided with reference to the context of Criminal Appeal No, 260-SB of 1982 and the decision therein kept in view.

The role of the Appellant was described in the above-referred to case in this manner:-

...... Darshan Singh accused was armed with a pistol; Joginder Singh accused armed with a Gandasi and the remaining two, Hansa Singh and Kashmir Singh were armed with lathies,................... Darshan Singh placed his pistol on the chest of Hoshiar Singh (PW-1) warning him that if he would utter anything he would be shot. His companions removed his wrist-watch and deprived him of his wearing apparel. His purse containing Rs. 95/- and his identity card, having a photograph were also removed. In the meantime, a buffalo-driven cart approached from Sadiron side in which were sitting PW-2 Sunehra and PW-3 Raghbir Singh. They too were robbed by the culprits. Currency notes of Rs. 45/-, one torch and one Jeli were snatched from them............................ Then those four persons ran away towards the field.

So far as the guilt of the other three accused was concerned, I had concluded as follows:-

......... In the absence of any corroboration that hurt had been caused to the prosecution witnesses by production of a medical expert, it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the Appellants u/s 397 of the Indian Penal Code. It is nobody''s case that the Appellants had employed their Gandasa and sticks in any other manner, that is to say by show of force or the like. Thus, while relying on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as an abundant caution, I would whittle down the offence to one u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code........................

The role of the Appellant in placing the pistol on the chest of Hoshiar Singh and asking him not to utter anything otherwise he would be shot at, clearly brings his case within the ambit of section 397, Indian Penal Code, His role cannot be equated with the role of the other two co-accused whose offence has been brought down to Section 392, Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to point out any reason why a different view regarding the prosecution version be taken in the instant case. Thus, there is no scope to alter the conviction, which is maintained.

The learned trial Judge had not sentenced the Appellant to any imprisonment to begin with. He found the Appellant to be below 20 years of age and entitled to the beneficent provisions of Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure. He ordered him to be released on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and be of good behavior for a period of three years of probation. In default thereof, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years u/s 397, Indian Penal Code and one years rigorous imprisonment u/s 25 of the Arms Act; both sentences to run concurrently. It appears that the Appellant could not furnish the requisite bond and right from March 31, 1982, the day the order was pronounced, he is behind bars. Four years have since elapsed. Possibly he also remained behind bars during trial. All this the Appellant suffered because he could not arrange for a surety to support his bond. Since there is no scope to reduce the sentence of the Appellant u/s 397, Indian Penal Code, which prescribes a minimum of seven years'' rigorous imprisonment, I would provide relief to the Appellant by declaring that the option for executing the bond is alive for him and that the condition of providing a surety is waived off. The Appellant may even now execute a personal bond in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- and seek his release, binding himself to come and receive the sentence when called upon by the Court and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Let the bond be executed before the trial Court or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, wherever convenient. The bond shall be operative for a period of two years.

This appeal is thus partially allowed to the above extent.