Hazara Ram and another vs Jagir Singh and another

Sham Sunder, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 22.10.1999, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, convicting the accused (now revision-petitioners) and awarding them various terms of sentence, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 325 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts, in brief, are that on 21.01.1991, at about 9 PM, Jagir Singh, at the relevant time, aged about 52 years, and his family members,were present, in their house, and were about to sleep after having meals. The accused (revision-petitioners) trespassed into their house by raising exhortations. Hazara Singh gave fist blows on the face of the complainant. When hue and cry was raised, Sukhvir Singh, son of the complainant, was attracted to the spot, from the nearby tube-well. Thereafter the accused ran away. The complainant was then taken to Civil Hospital Jallalabad, where he was medicolegally examined. His statement was recorded but no action was taken by the Police.

2-A. It was stated that the motive for the occurrence was that the panchayat gave a passage to the complainant, for approaching his house, but the accused obstructed him, from using the said passage. When no action was taken by the Police, a Criminal complaint was filed, by the complainant.

After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned. They put in appearance and were supplied the copies of complaint and other relevant documents, under the provisions of law.

In pre-charge evidence, Jagir Singh, complainant, himself, appeared in the witness box as PW-1, Dr. Vijay Khariwal, PW-2, Swaran Kaur, PW-3 and Sukhbir Singh, son of the complainant, PW-4. Thereafter, the pre-charge evidence was closed.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the pre- charge evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion, that the evidence, on record, even if went unrebuted, was sufficient to convict the accused. Accordingly, charge under Sections 452, 325 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. They also stated that they wanted to cross-examine the witnesses, already examined before charge. Thereafter, Jagir Singh, complainant Dr. Vijay Khariwal, Swaran Kaur, PW 3 and Sukhbir Singh, PW-4 were further cross-examined by the accused. Ultimately, the complainant closed the after-charge evidence.

The statements of the accused, u/s 313 of the Code Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They, however, examined Kuldip Singh, DW-1 and Bhagwan Dass, DW-2 in their defence. Thereafter, they closed the defence evidence.

After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentence the accused, as stated hereinbefore.

Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused-appellants, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2002, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition was filed.

I have heard Mr. S.C. Chbabra, Advocate for the revision-petitioners, Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate (Amicus-curiae) for the complainant-respondent, Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent- State, and have gone through and perused the evidence and record, of the case, carefully.

The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the conviction, recorded by the Appellate Court. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, are based on the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Jagir Singh, complainant, PW-1, who deposed in terms of the prosecution version, referred to above, while narrating the facts of the case, Swaran Kaur, wife of the complainant, PW-3 and Sukhbir Singh, son of the complainant, PW-4, both eye witnesses, as also Dr. Vijay Khariwal, PW-2, who medicolegally examined the complainant and found his first right lower molar and left lower last premolar absent. The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, that the accused were guilty of the offences, punishable, under Sections 452, 325 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are neither illegal, nor perverse. It is settled principle of law, that the Court in its revisional jurisdiction, can not revaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the parties, until and unless it comes to the conclusion, that the findings of the Courts below, were perverse or erroneous, resulting into miscarriage of justice. The judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Court, merit no interference, and are liable to be upheld.

The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, however, submitted that the occurrence took place on 21.09.1991 and since then the revision-petitioners have been facing the agony of protracted criminal proceedings. He has further submitted that the revision-petitioners are not the previous convicts. He further submitted that after the occurrence dated 21.09.1991, no crime was also committed by the revision-petitioners. He further submitted that the Court may grant the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the revision-petitioners. He has also placed reliance on Bahadur Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 (1) RCR Cri 104, Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh, 1988 (2) RCRCri 394 (SC) and Kapur Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2003 (3) RCR (Crl.) 510, in support of his contention.

Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate (Amicus-curiae), appearing, on behalf of the complainant-respondent, has, however, submitted that the mere fact the revision petitioners have been facing the agony of criminal proceedings, for the last 17 years, in itself, could not be said to be a sufficient ground, for their release on probation of good conduct. In the alternative, she submitted that, in case, the Court comes to the conclusion that the revision-petitioners are entitled to such a benefit, then heavy costs be imposed.

Taking into consideration the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case; the nature of offence; the antecedents of the revision-petitioners; the factum that the revision-petitioners have got no past criminal history; and that they have been facing the Criminal proceedings for the last 17 years, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which they should be granted the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, while maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence, is liable to be set aside and instead the revision petitioners deserve to be released on probation of good conduct.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, is upheld. The order of sentence is, however, set aside. Instead, the revision-petitioners are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct, for a period of two years each, on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each, with one surety in the like amount each and in the meanwhile to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. They shall also furnish an undertaking that, they shall not commit any offence in future. The revision-petitioners shall also pay costs of the proceedings, to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- each. The probation bonds, and the undertaking shall be furnished and the costs less than the amount of fine, if already paid, shall be deposited within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment by the trial Court. On deposit of the costs, referred to above, the same shall be paid to the complainant, as compensation, by the Court concerned, against receipt. In case, the probation bonds and the undertaking, referred to above are not furnished and the costs are not deposited within the stipulated time, the trial court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment.