Dashrath Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

R.C. Khulbe, J

This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is

directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Case No.526 of 2010,

whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the revisionist under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to six months’ R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-; he

was further convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The revisionist has also

challenged the judgment dated 10.07.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2011, Dashrath Singh v.

State, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Lower Court.

Brief facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by PW1 Amit Kumar to S.O. Ghansali with the allegation that on 31.12.2009 at

about 02:45 p.m., a bus, bearing No.DL-IPA-5617 going towards Ghuttu, whose driver, while driving the bus rashly and negligently, dashed his son,

due to which his son died at the spot. On the basis of the said written information, FIR was lodged; inquest report was prepared; and the vehicle was

got technically examined. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses, and a charge-sheet was submitted

against the revisionist.

The prosecution produced PW1 Amit Kumar, PW2 Keshav Lal, PW3 Mohan Lal, PW4 Mohan Singh Bisht, PW5 Rupesh Kumar, PW6 Madan

Singh Bisht and PW7 Dr. Sanjay Kandwal.

After completion of prosecution evidence, facts of the prosecution evidence were put to the revisionist under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which,

the revisionist denied all the allegations. No evidence was adduced in defence by the revisionist.

After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist as per the details given in paragraph no.1 of the judgment.

Aggrieved by the same, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 39/11, Dashrath Singh Vs. State, before the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal,

who, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on 10.07.2012 and affirmed the lower Court’s order. Assailing both the orders, the present

revision has been preferred.

I have also gone through the statements of witnesses, namely, PW1 Amit Kumar, PW2 Keshav Lal, PW3 Mohan Lal, PW4 Mohan Singh Bisht,

PW5 Rupesh Kumar, PW6 Madan Singh Bisht and PW7 Dr. Sanjay Kandwal. The testimony of the above witnesses is not only natural but also

trustworthy. They have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has come out in their evidence which may create any reasonable

doubt in their testimony. In the above circumstances the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against

the revisionist beyond reasonable doubt. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment, since material and substantial evidence is available on record

against the revisionist. The revisionist has rightly been convicted by the Trial Court u/s 279 and 304A IPC, and the order of conviction and sentence

has also rightly been upheld by the Appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the revisionist fairly argued that he does not want to argue the case on merit, since the learned trial Court has rightly convicted

the revisionist as per evidence produced by the prosecution; but the matter relates to the year 2009; 11 years have elapsed; the revisionist is old and

infirm; there is no criminal history against him; it was an accidental death and a benefit of first offenders’ act may be given to him in the light of

the evidence.

Learned State Counsel fairly submitted that it is true that the offence relates to the year 2009 and 11 years have elapsed and he did not receive any

information regarding the criminal history of the revisionist and, accordingly, looking to the nature of offence, the revisionist can be extended the

benefit of First Offenders Act.

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.â€​

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.â€​

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 this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Paul George vs. State of NCT of Delhi†reported in 2008 SCC (Cri.) 2, 768, in

paragraph no.12, has held as under:

This litigation has been going on for the last 20 years and has been fought tenaciously through various courts, we are also told that the

appellant who has had a good career throughout but for this one aberration has since been dismissed from service on account of his

conviction. We, therefore, while dismissing the appeal, feel that the ends of justice would be met if we direct that the appellant be released

on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. The appeal is

disposed of in the above terms.

In the present case the revisionist is the first-time offender. The incident seems to have taken place 11 years ago.

Therefore, considering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, no useful purpose would be served to send the revisionist to jail to

serve out the remaining sentence. Rather, in the opinion of the Court, he should be released on probation in order to reform himself.

The impugned judgments and orders passed by the trial court and the appellate Court below are hereby affirmed and the present revision, thus,

stands partly allowed. The conviction part of the revisionist â€" Dashrath Singh, under Section 304A and 279 IPC, are left intact. However, as far the

sentence part is concerned, it is directed that the revisionist shall be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond to the

satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court with one surety. The fine, as imposed by the Trial Court, shall be deposited by the revisionist within a period

of one month, if not already deposited, from the date of receipt of this order, to the court concerned. The concerned Magistrate 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/revisionist fails

to observe good conduct and behaviour during probation or is found violating any condition, to be imposed; the Court concerned shall be at liberty to

cancel the bonds calling the accused-revisionist to serve out the remaining sentence. The revisionist shall appear before the Trial Court on or before

30.09.2020 for compliance.

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