Mulakh Raj vs State of Haryana

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Mulakh Raj (24) was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi, by order dated August 21, 1989, under Sections 452, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ and in default to a sentence of three months under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and to lesser terms of imprisonment and fine for the remaining offences. The sentence of imprisonment was made concurrent. His appeal both regarding conviction as well as sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Hissar, on April 24, 1991. The present revision was admitted with regard to the question of sentence only.

The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on the night intervening 20th and 21st June, 1987, the petitioner entered the house of Naresh Kumari, who was sleeping in the courtyard,. at 11 p.m. On alarm being raised by Naresh Kumari, her mother Sheela Devi, her father Manohar Singh and two neighbours Chuni Lal and Paras Ram, who were sleeping outside in the street, came to the spot and tried to catch hold of the accused. The accused, however, gave Lathi blows to Manohar Singh and managed to run away. The matter was reported to the police and the accused was tried and convicted, as already stated.

The contention of Mr. I. S. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner is only 24 years old, is not a previous convict and had been suffering the agony of criminal trial and the appeal following his conviction since June 1987. Learned counsel laid special emphasis on the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal, did not notice any special reason why the benefit of probation was not extended to the petitioner. He placed his reliance on Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) Recent C.R. 579. It was laid down therein that where the Court decided against probation, the Court should state special reasons.

I have given the matter my earnest consideration.

In the facts of the present case, the offender is 24 years old. No previous conviction has been proved against him. He has been found guilty of offences which expressly fall within the purview of S. 360 of the Cri. C.P. i.e. of. offences punishable with a term of seven years or less. There are no special reasons for denying the benefit of probation to the petitioner. For these reasons, the sentence imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate court is set aside. Instead, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/ with one surety in a like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so during a period of two years from the date of furnishing the bend, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The bond and surety shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial Court within two months from today. The revision petition is disposed of in these terms.