Jatinder Kumar and Others vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 8.1.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332 and 353 read with Section 34, IPC, recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mukerian, was dismissed with modification in the order of sentence.

When the case came up for preliminary hearing on 15.1.2014, then the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below, he did not propose to challenge the conviction of the petitioners, therefore, notice of motion was issued with regard to quantum of sentence only.

In compliance thereof, learned counsel for the State has put in appearance and produced the affidavits of the Superintendent, District Jail, Hoshiarpur, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners, which are taken on record.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners, but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the whole material available on record has been re-scanned.

According to the allegations, Harminder Singh, Junior Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, had presented a complaint before the police alleging therein that under the orders of his senior officer, he (complainant) had to release the electricity connection in favour of Achhro Devi, at her tube well. To give effect the said order, on 23.12.2006, at about 4:30 p.m., the complainant along with Chaman Lal and Gurmit Singh, Linemen, Surinder Singh, Assistant Lineman, and other staff members reached at the spot for installing electric polls and laying the electric wires. When the complainant along with his fellow employees was busy in performing his job, then petitioner No. 2, Bal Kishan, along with his sons, namely, Jatinder Kumar and Narinder Kumar (petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 respectively) arrived there and told the complainant to stop the work. In turn, the complainant told them that he was doing his duty and in case they wanted to stop the work they should obtain stay orders from the Court. In the meantime, petitioner No. 2, Bal Kishan, picked up a brickbat lying at the spot and threw it towards the complainant, but the same hit at the hand of Surinder Singh, Assistant Lineman (PW3). Petitioner No. 1, Jatinder Kumar, inflicted an injury on the right hand of Gurmit Singh (PW2) by means of a brickbat. In spite of the requests made by the complainant''s side the petitioners did not go from the spot, rather a stick lying there was picked up and the injuries were inflicted on the persons of PW2 and PW3. The police also arrived at the spot and apprehended the petitioners from there. The case for committing the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332 and 353 read with Section 34, IPC, was registered against the petitioners. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet (report u/s 173, Cr. P.C.) was presented. The charges for the above said offences were framed to which the petitioners did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

PW-1 Harminder Singh, complainant;

PW-2 Gurmit Singh, Lineman;

PW-3 Surinder Singh, Assistant Lineman;

PW-4 HC Jagjit Singh;

PW-5 Ravinder Singh;

PW-6 Balwinder Singh, Lineman;

PW-7 Achhro Devi;

PW-8 ASI Vijay Kumar;

PW-9 Jaswant Singh, SDO; and

PW-10 Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Medical Officer.

In their statements recorded u/s 313, Cr. P.C., the petitioners denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence. The petitioners also examined Joginder Pal and Dr. Satinderpal Singh, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Mukerian, in their defence.

After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court held the petitioners guilty for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332 and 353 read with Section 34, IPC, and ordered each one of them to undergo the following sentences:-

8 All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The appeal filed by the petitioners was partly allowed vide judgment dated 8.1.2014 and the learned Lower Appellate Court while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, modified their substantive sentences as under:-

Perusal of the material available on record, particularly the depositions of Gurmit Singh (PW2) and Surinder Singh (PW3) clearly spell out that the ingredients of the offences for which the petitioners have been convicted are clearly made out. Both the learned Courts below have rightly held the petitioners guilty for the said offences and, as such, learned counsel for the petitioners has correctly proposed not to challenge the verdict of guilt against them. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332 and 353 read with Section 34, IPC, is upheld.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, with regard to quantum of sentence submits that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2006, at the time when the complainant and his co-employees were erecting the electric polls and laying electric cables from nearby the land of the petitioners; under the confusion that the complainant and his fellow employees were trespassing in the land of the petitioners and causing damage to the crop, the occurrence had taken place; there was no previous enmity or ill-will between the petitioners and the complainant side; the occurrence had originated at the spur of the moment; petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are Government employees; petitioner No. 2, Bal Kishan, is working in the Indian Railways for the last several years, while petitioner No. 3, Narinder Kumar, is a Government teacher; and that if their sentence is upheld, then they will not only lose their permanent jobs, but their dependents would also suffer a lot. It has also been contended that the petitioners are first offenders. They have already suffered the agony of trial and appeal for almost eight years. He further contends that in view of the provisions contained in Section 360, Cr. P.C., the petitioner may be released on probation.

Heard.

In the case of Aitha ChanderRao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , Hon''ble the Supreme Court, in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity, ''the Act'') released the accused-convict on probation keeping in view the fact that the conviction awarded to him would not affect his service career. In B.S. Narayanan v. State of A.P., 1987 Cri. LR (SC) 669 , Hon''ble the Supreme Court extended the benefit of probation to an accused who committed the offence punishable u/s 353, IPC, primarily on the ground that the accused, who was a conductor might lose his service. In Ashutosh Kumar Manoj Vs. State of Bihar, , Hon''ble the Supreme Court had released the convict of an offence punishable u/s 324, IPC, on probation primarily on the ground that he was an employee in a bank and would lose his job. In Jamal Haq v. State of Tripura, 2006 (9) SCC 757, Hon''ble the Supreme Court released a teacher on probation, who was held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 323, IPC, mainly on the ground that he might lose his job. In Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, , this Court had extended the benefit of probation to the convicts, who were driver and conductor, for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332 and 353, IPC, basically keeping in view the fact that they should be afforded an opportunity to reform themselves in view the reformative trend of modern penology towards reformation and reclamation of the offender. Similar view was taken by this Court in the matter of Ved Parkash v. State of Punjab, 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 823, where the convict for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332 and 353, IPC, was ordered to be released on probation.

Perusal of the affidavits produced on record by the learned counsel for the State reveals that each petitioner has suffered incarceration for 3 months and 11 days as on 18.4.2014, therefore, till date the petitioners have suffered incarceration for more than four months.

Concededly, the petitioners are the first offenders. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the Government employees. The occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment in the fields where the complainant party was erecting electric polls and laying electric cables. There was no previous enmity between the petitioners and the complainant side. For the last 8 years, the petitioners have suffered the agony of trial and appeal. Each of the petitioners has suffered incarceration for approximately four months.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is partly allowed. The execution of the remaining substantive sentence of the petitioners is kept in abeyance and each one of them is ordered to be released on probation for a period of two year, subject to their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, u/s 360, Cr. P.C. The petitioners shall not repeat the offences and be of good behaviour during the said period. However, there shall be no change in the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court as upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court. In case the petitioners violate the terms and conditions of the bonds to be furnished by them, in that eventuality, the Court of competent jurisdiction shall be free to call them for undergoing the remaining sentences. In view of the fact that the petitioners had caused injuries to the Government employees, therefore, each one of them is also burdened to pay Rs. 35,000/- (35,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,05,000/-), to be paid to the injured persons, namely, Gurmit Singh (PW2) and Surinder Singh (PW3) in equal share, i.e. Rs. 52,500/- each. The amount of compensation shall be deposited by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court within one month of passing of this order, preferably at the time of furnishing of the bonds as narrated hereinabove. After receipt of the amount of compensation, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice to the aforementioned injured persons for disbursement of the compensation to them as per norms.

The petitioners are stated to be in jail. They be set at liberty immediately for one month. The bail bonds furnished by them during trial or appeal shall enure during said period.

In case the petitioners fail to comply with the order passed by this Court, then the learned Trial Court shall issue the warrants of their arrest so that they may undergo the remaining substantive sentence awarded to them by the learned Lower Appellate Court.