Mohan Shyam vs Sonu and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Present criminal revision petition, at the instance of the complainant, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby appeal of the convicts was partly allowed with modification, releasing the convicts-respondents on probation, upholding the judgment of conviction dated 13.2.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal.

Brief facts, as noticed by the learned trial Court in para 1 of its judgment, are that the case was registered on the complaint of complainant Mohan Shyam (''petitioner herein'') to the effect that on 8.8.2009 at about 7.30. a.m., he was present in the house. Suddenly accused-respondents armed with Lathi, Danda, stones entered into the house of the complainant-petitioner. Accused-respondent (Sonu) inflicted lathi blow on the head of the complainant-petitioner. Accused-respondent (Dinesh) inflicted Danda blow on the left hand middle finger of the complainant. Accused-respondent (Santosh) hurled stone on the hip of the complainant-petitioner. Accused-respondent (Nitin) shoved the complainant. Accused-respondent (Gulla) also gave legs and fist blows to the complainant. On raising alarm, Raju and Om Parkash reached at the spot and saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused-respondents. While going accused-respondents also threatened to kill him on getting chance in future. Complainant-petitioner got himself medico legally examined in Civil Hospital, Palwal. Matter was reported to the police station but police did not take any action against the accused persons.

On the basis of above-said complaint, accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 323 , 452 , and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), vide order dated 7.1.2011. Pre-charge evidence was produced by the complainant-petitioner. Having found a prima facie case, charges were framed against the respondents for the offences under Sections 323 , 452 , 506 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

After-charge evidence was produced by the complainant-petitioner, only by cross-examining himself as CW-1, besides other evidence. On closing the after charge evidence of the complainant, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record was put to the accused. They denied the allegations, alleged false implication and claimed complete innocence. However, the accused did not lead any defence evidence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case bringing home the guilt against the accused. Accordingly, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.2.2015, the accused were convicted and sentenced as under:--

Dissatisfied, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence were challenged by the convicts-respondents, by way of appeal, which also came to be dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, however, with modification, releasing the convicts-respondents on probation of good conduct, vide impugned judgment dated 21.05.2015. Hence this criminal revision petition, at the hands of complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned first appellate court committed a serious error, while granting the benefit of probation to the convicts-respondents. He further submits that since the prosecution has duly proved its case bringing home the guilt against the convicts-respondents and they were rightly convicted by the learned trial Court, they were not entitled for the benefit of probation, which has been illegally granted to them by the learned first appellate court. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgment to the extent it has granted the benefit of probation to the convicts-respondents, by allowing the present petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted, at the hands of this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, which itself is a limited one. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned first appellate court did not exceed its jurisdiction, while granting the benefit of probation to the convicts-respondents. Sufficient and cogent reasons have been assigned. The learned first appellate court has not been found to have committed any error of law, while passing the impugned judgment and the same deserves to be upheld.

The above-said view taken by this Court also finds support from the following judgments:--

"1. M.C.D. Vs. State of Delhi and Another, ;

Ramesh Dass v. Raghu Nath and others, 2008(2) SCC (Crl.) 470;

State Vs. Sanjiv Bhalla, ;

Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999 (2) RCR (Crl.) 563 (P&H);

Chuni Lal v. State of Haryana, 2006(1) RCR (Crl.) 844;

State of Punjab v. Harinder Singh @ Raju, 2008 (2) RCR (Crl.) 294 P&H);

CRR No. 97 of 2002 (Mani Ram v. State of Punjab), decided on 30.7.2010 (P&H);

CRR No. 1385 of 2012 (Chander Parkash v. State of UT Chandigarh), decided on 15.5.2012 (P&H); and

CRR No. 1289 of 2015 (Pardeep and others v. State of Haryana), decided on 30.4.2015."

The relevant observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 27 of its judgment in Sanjiv Bhalla''s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:--

"These decisions indicate that the philosophical basis of our criminal jurisprudence is undergoing a shift - from punishment being a humanizing mission to punishment being deterrent and retributive. This shift may be necessary in today''s social context (though no opinion is expressed), but given the legislative mandate of Sections 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Probation of Offenders Act, what is imperative for the judge is to strike a fine balance between releasing a convict after admonition *[18] or on probation or putting such a convict in jail. This can be decided only on a case by case basis but the principle of rehabilitation and the humanizing mission must not be forgotten.

*[18] Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Section 3 : Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition. - When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him 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 so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under Section 4 release him after due admonition.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or Section 4 ."

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, in the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court, so as to enable this Court to interfere in the impugned judgment, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, taking a different view than the one taken by the learned first appellate court. In fact, the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court has been found to be factually correct as well as legally justified and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.