Soban Singh And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

R.C. Khulbe, J

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants U/s 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Sessions Trial No.19 of 2003, convicting and sentencing appellant no.1-Soban Singh under Section 325 IPC with 2 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine Rs.1,000/-and appellant nos.2 & 3 under Section 324 IPC with one year's rigorous imprisonment.

Brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2001 at about 6:30 p.m. the appellants/convicts with the intention to kill the complainant-Diwan Singh, resident of village Mahrudi (Chutrani), Patwari Circle Mahrudi, Tehsil Kapkoti, District Bageshwar assaulted and caused grievous injuries with sharp edge weapon on his head and hands, abused him in filthy language and threatened to kill him. Written complaint of the incident Ex.Ka-1 was given to Patwari, Patwar Circle, on the basis of which, Chick FIR Ex. Ka-2 was registered against them. The injured-Diwan Singh was taken to Hospital at Bageshwar and after preliminary medical treatment, he was referred to Almora.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused Soban Singh, Bhagwat Singh and Ramuli Devi under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC.

After compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, namely, PW1 Prema Devi (complainant and wife of injured), PW2 Vimla Devi (daughter of injured), PW3 Trilok Singh, PW4 Ganesh Lal Verma and PW5 Dr. Sanjay Kumar.

After completion of evidence, statements of the appellants/ accused were recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegations and claimed innocence. No evidence was produced in defense. However, stated that they have falsely been implicated in the crime.

After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court, vide the judgment, under challenge, convicted and sentenced appellant no.1-Soban Singh under Section 325 IPC with 2 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine Rs.1,000/- and appellant nos.2 & 3 under Section 324 IPC with one year's rigorous imprisonment.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record.

During the pendency of the appeal, as per report of the S.D.M. concerned, appellant no.1-Sobhan Singh & appellant No.2-Bhagwat Singh has passed away and the present appeal qua the appellant no.1 & 2 stands abated.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Ramuli Devi fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Section 324 IPC is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also does not want to lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the appellant may be extended the benefit of being the first offender and she may be released on probation by giving him the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as the appellant is old one and infirm lady. Moreover, she has been awarded only one year rigorous imprisonment.

Mr. A.K. Sah, learned A.G.A. for the State, admits that he has not received any report about the criminal antecedents of the appellant, and admitted that appellant is the first-time offender.

In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola" reported in 2001 SCC (Cri.) 2, 897, in paragraph no.7, has held as under:

"7. Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as a useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to deleterious effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act."

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under:

"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct

When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life 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 to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: "Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if 5 any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. 5. The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."

Section 4 of the Act would demonstrate that if a person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, in that event, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, the Court, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, may release such person on probation of good conduct, on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, for a period not exceeding three years. Before releasing the offender, on probation, the Court must satisfy itself that offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. The Court before passing the order of release on probation may also call report of the Probation Officer. The Court while releasing on probation may also direct that accused shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer for a period not less than one year.

A careful reading of Section 4 of the Act would reveal that if the offence is punishable for a period more than 2 years, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, admonition of sentence shall not be required and if person, released on probation, is found involved in any offence during the period of probation or otherwise, is found behaving in violation of condition of bond, he shall be directed to serve out the sentence awarded by the court. In other words, while on probation, such person should not involve himself in subsequent offence or must honour the condition of his bond / surety bond and if he breaches the same, he has to serve out the sentence awarded by the Court.

In the present case the appellant is the first-time offender. The incident seems to have taken place more than 18 years ago. Moreover, the appellant is old and infirm lady and she has no criminal history.

Therefore, considering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in the opinion of the Court, the appellant- Ramuli Devi should be released on probation in order to reform herself.

The present appeal, thus, stands disposed of. The conviction part of the appellant Ramuli Devi under Section 324 is left intact. However, as far the sentence part is concerned, it is directed that the appellant Ramuli Devi shall be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. The Judge concerned shall be at liberty to impose such conditions while executing the bond which he feels fit in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if accused/appellant fails to observe good conduct and behaviour during probation, or is found violating any condition, to be imposed, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bond after calling the accused-appellant and to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The appellant Ramuli Devi shall appear before the Trial Court on or before 22.10.2019 for compliance.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.