Raj Singh vs State of Haryana

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioners'' learned counsel submitted that no doubt on 10.3.1998 while notice was issued to the respondentstate qua petitioner No. 5, only, the learned Single Judge has not at all adverted to his request that petitioners are solely challenging the quantum of sentence also. Therefore, notice with regard to other petitionersaccused was not issued to the respondentState. He submits that petitioners are not challenging their convection under sections 323/325/149/148 and 506 IPC but they are only challenging the sentence. They have been sentenced to R.I. for three months each under Sections 323/149 IPC, R.I. for three months each under Section 148 IPC, R.I. for six months each under Section 506 IPC for six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ each under Sections 325/149 IPC and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one month each. The jail sentence was to run concurrently.

Petitioners'' learned counsel submitted that petitioners are young persons. They have already undergone 91 days of jail sentence. If they are sentenced to jail to undergo the remaining sentence that will be a blot on their career and will spoil their life in future. He also submitted that without any motive at the spur of the moment, this incident took place. In this incident accused gave various injuries to the complainant. Petitioners are facing this trial right from 1992. They have already suffered much agony on that count. He also submits that accused persons are first offenders. Therefore, he prays that instead of jail sentence they be given the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Learned A.A.G. Haryana submitted that accused persons mercilessly caused injuries to the complainant. Complainant suffered four fractures. They are not below 21 years of age. He admits that they are first offenders. According to him, the facts of the case do not call for lenient view so far as sentence is concerned.

Before deciding this petition, it is necessary to advert to the facts of the case.

Adumbrated facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.12.1992 at about 8.00 A.M. when the complainant was talking to Kishori Lal to avail his services for irrigating the fields, accused Raj Singh caught hold of his Chader and said that he is required by Kiran etc. The complainant declined to go with him. At that very time other accused persons also reached there. They all were armed with Lathis. They belaboured the complainant with their lathis. Complainant shouted for help. Other persons intervened, saved the complainant. Thereafter, accused persons ran away threatening the complainant to eliminate him in future. Complainant lodged the report. He was medically examined. He sustained 8 injuries which are proved by Dr. M.M. Sharma, PW 4. Injuries Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were simple. Injuries Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 8 were radiologically examined by Dr. Surjit singh, P.W. 5 who opined that there was fracture of right upper arm, dislocation of the little finger, fracture of metacarple phalangeal joint and fracture of fibula on the right side of the right leg. On these facts, accused were prosecuted for an offence under Sections 323/325/148/149 and 506 IPC. The trial Court found them guilty of all these offences and sentenced them as stated at the outset.

The accused persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1998 which was decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide his judgment dated 4.3.1998. The appeal was dismissed. The trial Magistrate as well as the appellate Court declined the prayer of the accused persons to give them the benefit of probation.

Petitioners'' learned counsel has simply submitted that no doubt the accused persons have been convicted under Sections 323, 325, 148, 149 and 506 IPC but this is their first offence. Except accused Inder Singh they are not below 21 years of age. But considering the facts of the case, the benefit of probation ought to have been given to them.

No doubt all the seven accused persons armed with Lathis belaboured the complainant. He sustained injuries on his person. Out of them 4 were grievous injuries. Considering the fact that they all are residents of the same village, if accused persons are directed to undergo the remaining part of their sentence that will further cause of big cleavage between the accused persons and the complainant. Accused persons have already undergone 91 days of imprisonment. Under the aforesaid circumstances, and also considering the antecedents of the petitioners, they are directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of probation and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. They are further directed to pay Rs. 300/ each as compensation to the complainant. Petitioners should deposit this amount of compensation within 15 days from today. The trial Court shall give notice to the complainantinjured for collecting this amount of compensation when it is deposited by the petitioners in the Court.

Revision is accordingly disposed of.