Kishan Kumar vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.

This revision is directed against the judgment dated January 8, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 332/506, I.P.C. recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, by judgment/order dated 5.1.1994, have been confirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 332, Indian Penal Code. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 506, Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

The facts giving rise to this revision are that on 9.2.1987, Shri Subhash Mahajan, Incharge Tehbazari, along with Kamal Kishore, Tehbazari Inspector, 5 Tehbazari Collectors and 5 Beldars including Anant Ram (PW 1) and Raj Kumar (PW 2) had gone in the municipal area in their official vehicle being driven by one Tarsem Lal. After performing their official duties, in different localities, they reached the shop of Ram Parkash, the father of the petitioner, situated in Rainak Bazar, Jalandhar, at about 12.15 p.m. Some Karyana goods were lying outside the shop on the municipal land. Inspector Kamal Kishore directed the Collectors and Beldars to remove the goods. On it Ram Parkash and the petitioner put resistance and obstructed the removal of goods and prevented the municipal staff from performing their duties. They also gave fist and lathi blows to Anant Kumar and Raj Kumar Beldars. Anant Kumar was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, and was examined by the doctor also. The petitioner and his father also threatened that in case their goods were removed again, they would see to it that their lives would not be safe.

F.I.R. No. 34 dated 9.2.1987 was registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet under sections 353/332/186/506, I.P.C. was filed against Ram Parkash and the petitioner. On 4.9.1987, a charge under section 353/332/506, I.P.C., was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution could examine only five witnesses during a span of six years and ultimately the trial Court was forced to close the case of the prosecution on 7.5.1993. In their examination under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that they had been falsely implicated. Accepting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and disbelieving the defence version, the trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced Ram Parkash and the petitioner for the offences under sections 332/506, I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved both the convicts challenged their conviction and sentence in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. During the course of hearing, the appellants confined their case only to the question of probation. This plea was accepted qua Ram Parkash only. Conviction and sentence of the petitioner was confirmed by the impugned judgment. Hence this revision.

Notice qua sentence was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

Shri R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate, while appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the allegations of the prosecution against the petitioner and his father are identical in nature, that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and that he has also undergone the agony of a long trial. It is, thus, contended that under the facts and circumstances of the case, he should not have been discriminated in the matter of sentence.

On the other hand, Shri I.P.S. Sidhu, learned A.A.G., Punjab, has argued that keeping in view the nature of the offence, the trial Court and the appellate Court were justified in imposing the sentence of imprisonment upon the petitioner and not releasing him on probation.

It is not disputed that the petitioner is not a previous convict. The offences for which the petitioner has been convicted do not involve any moral turpitude nor the same can be said to be heinous in nature. The petitioner has also undergone the strain and agony of a prolonged trial since the year 1987. His life is not unsettled or restless and he is pursuing a peaceful vocation. Keeping in view the character and antencedents of the petitioner as well as the nature of the offence, I do not find any reason to discriminate him in the matter of sentence. The mere fact that his father is 75 years of age whereas the petitioner is 40 years of age, in itself is not enough to deny the benefit of probation to the petitioner and to put him behind the bars and to make him a hardened criminal.

For the reasons mentioned above, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under sections 332/506, IPC, is affirmed. However, the sentence imposed upon him for these offence is hereby set aside and he is directed to be released on probation for a period of two years on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate, undertaking to appear before the Court, if and when called upon to do so to receive sentence, and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviours. The amount of fine shall be treated as costs of the litigation.

With the above modification, the revision stands disposed of.