Om Prakash vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.11.88 at about 6.30 PM Durga PW1 had gone to enquire about the health of his wife at General Hospital, Sohna because Partap Singh son of Munshi Ram had driven tractor over her leg. When Durga was coming back alongwith his brother Rattan Lal and had just crossed the gate of the hospital, Omi, Parsa Ram, Ram Singh, Partap, Sansar, Teenu alias Karan Singh, Azad, Lekhraj, Rohtash, Khiman and Munshi Ram and 3/4 others carrying lathis and iron rods attacked them (Durga and Rattan Lal). Munshi and Omi raised Lalkara that they should be taught lesson for having lodged report with regard to the accident of the tractor. Omi gave blow with iron rod on the right hand of Durga. Parsa Ram accused gave accused lathi blow on the left hand of Durga. Ram Singh gave lathi blow on the back of the right shoulder of Durga. Parsa Ram gave iron rod blow on the nose of Durga. Durga fell down. Teenu gave lathi blow on the left leg of Durga. When Rattan Lal stepped forward, Sansar accused gave saria blow on his head which hit on the back side. Accused Azad gave lathi blow on Rattan Lal''s head. Accused Lekhraj gave saria blow which fell on the back side of the neck of Rattan Lal. In the meantime, Rattan Lal fell down. Rohtash gave lathi blow on his leg. Accused Khiman gave blow on his right leg. Accused Munshi gave lathi blow on his chest. On hearing their alarm, one Jasram, his brother Bisram and one Kanhiya came to the spot. Many people gathered at the spot. Accused ran away from the spot. Matter was reported to the police by Durga PW. Initially case was registered under sections 148/323/149 IPC. Later when fracture was detected on the person of Durga, offence under section 325 IPC was added. After investigation, accused were challaned.

Accused were charged under sections 323/325/148/149 IPC vide order dated 19490 by the learned Magistrate. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

Lekh Raj accused died during the trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon, sentenced each of the accused to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs. 500/ each for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC. In default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years each with fine of Rs. 1000/ each for offence punishable under section 325 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year with fine of Rs. 200/ each for the offence punishable under section 148 IPC. In default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved from order dated 17/18196 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, convicting and sentencing Om Prakash and others, they went in appeal to the court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissed their appeal and maintained their conviction. As regards Sansar, he observed that as he was a juvenile. He should have been tried by a juvenile Court and his trial by the ordinary criminal Court was void. He set aside conviction and sentence passed upon Sansar but ordered that supplementary challan could be filed against him in the juvenile Court for trial de novo. Aggrieved from this order dated 31798 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, Om Prakash and other accused have come up in revision to this Court.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners did not assail the propriety of conviction of Om Prakash and other accused. He could not do so obviously because before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, conviction had not been challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners should be released on probation of good conduct as they were put up on trial in the year 1988. They remained in trial for 7 years before the learned Magistrate when on 17/18196, they were convicted and sentenced by him. They went in appeal to the Court of Session. Their appeal remained pending for about two and a half years before the Court of Session, when unfortunately their appeal was dismissed. It was submitted that they have thus suffered the vagaries of criminal trial for about 10 years. During this period of 10 years, they have suffered lot of mental pain and agony. For the mental pain and agony which they have suffered during the protracted trial, some leniency should be shown to them in the matter of sentence.

Doctor found following injuries when he medically examined Rattan Lal on 161198 at 625 p.m. :

1 Two lacerated wounds 3x.5 cm bone deep and 1.5x.5 cm bone were present on the right parietal region of the skull. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised xray.

2 Two lacerated wounds 1.5 cms bone deep and 1x.25 cms bone deep were present on the left parietal region of the scalp. Adv. xray.

3 Abrasion in the area of 3x2 cms on the left side of the neck. Blood clots were present.

4 Lacerated wound 3x.5 cm muscle deep on the anterior to lower 1/3 of left leg.

5 Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x.5 cms muscle deep on the anterior and lower 1/3rd of right leg.

6 Complaint of pain on both side of the chest.

Doctor found following injuries on the person of Durga on 161198 at 630 PM :

1 Lacerated wound 1x.5 cms muscle deep was present on the lateral angle of the right eye brow, Fresh bleeding was present. There was reddish blue bruise all over the eye lids. Adv. eye surgeon''s opinion.

2 Lacerated wound 1x.5 cms on the lateral angle of the left eye. Blood clots were present. There was a subconjunctival haemorrhage present. Adv. eye surgeon''s opinion.

3 Red bruise in the area of 6x5 cms on the right side of the back of the piece (pelvic ?) region bone crepitous were present. Adv. xray and referred to surgeon for expert opinion.

4 Diffuse swelling with tenderness present on the nasal bridge. Bleeding from both nostrills. Adv. xray.

5 Lacerated wound 2x.5 cm present on the anterior and lower 1/3rd of leg. There was diffuse swelling with tenderness around the lower 1/3rd of the left leg bony crepitus was present. Adv. xray.

Dr. S.S. Arora, who radiologically examined Rattan Lal on 161198 stated that he did not find any bone injury in the scalp. He radiologically examined Durga. He stated that on radiological examination of Durga, he found fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of right 5/6/7th ribs. He produced before the Court the xray reports and xray films.

From the number of injuries and the fractures, one can say that Durga and Rattan Lal were ruthlessly given blows with lathis and iron rods. Durga and Rattan Lal were beaten to the pulp and, therefore, every petitioner cannot be released on probation of good conduct. Accused Om Prakash cannot be released on probation of good conduct as he gave blow with iron rod near the left eye of Durga. To Om Prakash injury No. 2 mentioned in the MLR relating to Durga has been attributed. Parsa accused cannot be released on probation of good conduct as to him injury on the right eye of Durga has been attributed. To him injury No. 1 mentioned in the MLR relating to Durga has been attributed. Partap accused can also not be released on probation of good conduct as to him the attribution is that he gave blow with iron rod on the nose of Durga. Teenu alias Karan Singh accused can also not be released on probation of good conduct as to him, the attribution is that he gave iron rod blow on the left leg of Durga.

To Rohtash, the attribution is that he gave lathi blow on the leg of Rattan Lal. To Khiman, the attribution is that he gave lathi blow on the right leg of Rattan Lal. To Munish Ram, the attribution is that he gave lathi blow on the back of Rattan Lal. To Munish, Khima and Rohtash, the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given as they joined others and rained blows on Durga and Rattan Lal incessantly. To, Ram Singh, the attributions given were lathi blow on the right shoulder of Durga which disclosed (dislicated ?) from there. As such, he cannot be released on probation of good conduct. Leniency should however be shown to Om Prakash etc. accused in the matter of sentence, keeping in view that they have been suffering the vagaries of criminal trial for the last about 10 years.

It is, therefore, ordered that Azad is ordered to be released on bail on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/ for a period of one year. During this period, he shall undertake to be of good behaviour and keep peace. In addition, he is burdened with Rs. 2000/ which shall be paid as compensation to Durga and Rattan Lal. Sentence imposed upon Om Prakash, Ram Singh, Partap, Parsa Ram, Rohtas, Karan Singh, Khima and Munshi by the learned Courts below is slashed and brought down as follows :

Each of them shall undergo RI for 6 months each. They shall pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 months under section 325/149 IPC. They shall further undergo RI for 6 months and they shall pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ each or in default to undergo further RI for 2 months each under section 148 IPC. They shall further undergo RI for 4 months each and shall pay fine of Rs. 1000/ each and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under sections 323/149 IPC. Entire amount of fine if recovered shall be paid to Durga and Rattan Lal in the ratio of 2:1.

Subject to this reduction/modification in sentence this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.