Suraj Bhan vs State of Haryana

Gurdev Singh, J.—The Petitioner/accused, Suraj Bhan, alongwith Mool Chand, was tried by SDJM, Nuh. He was convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, whereas Mool Chand was convicted for the offence u/s 377 IPC. The following sentence was imposed upon the accused by that trial court:

1 Suraj Bhan (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months u/s 325 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-; and (ii) to pay fine Rs. 500/- u/s 323 IPC and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2 Mool Chand (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 377 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-; and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Both the accused preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, but Mool Chand died during the pendency of the appeal and, as such, proceedings against him stood abated. The appeal of the present Petitioner/accused was dismissed, vide judgment dated 8.11.2005. Now he has preferred this revision against his conviction and sentence.

The prosecution story is, that on 22.9.1997, Rahul Kumar, aged 5/6 years, son of Pradeep Kumar, and grand son of Chokh Ram, complainant/injured (P.W.-2), was playing outside his house. He was taken to an uninhabited place by Mool Chand-accused and made him to hold his penis and thereafter was shaking the same. In the meanwhile, Surinder Kumar came to that place and saw that illegal act of that accused and reprimanded him as to why he was getting such an act done from the child. On 25.9.1997, Pradeep Kumar was going to lodge a report with the police regarding that act of the accused, whereas the complainant was sitting inside Shiv Mandir. Suraj Bhan-accused came to that place and started abusing him. At that time, he was holding a lathi in his hand, and while saying that he would teach him a lesson for getting the report lodged against his father, gave three blows on his left buttocks, one on the left side of his chest and one on his left eye. The complainant raised an alarm, which attracted Daya Nand (P.W.-4) and Chhote Lal (P.W.-5) to the spot, who saved him from the accused. While leaving the spot, that accused threatened to kill him in future. The complainant was proceeding to the police station to lodge a report when Mehender Singh, HC (P.W.-6) met him on the way. He made his statement Ex. P.W. 2/A about all these facts before that Head Constable, who after making his endorsement Ex. P.W. 6/A upon the same sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof FIR Ex. P.W. 1/A was registered against the accused under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. The Head Constable went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared rough site plan Ex. P.W. 6/C. The complainant was medically examined by Dr. Sunita Sharma (P.W. -1), who found five injuries on his person, which were detailed in the medico legal report Ex. P.W. 1/A. On that very day, Pradeep Kumar gave written application to the officer in-charge of the police station in which he narrated the above said incident of 22.9.1997. The Head Constable went to the place of that occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. P.W. 6/B. The injuries on the person of the complainant were radiologically examined by Dr. B.B. Aggarwal (P.W.-7), who found fracture of the 7th rib and gave his report Ex. P.W. 7/A. On the basis of that report, injury No. 3 on the person of the complainant was declared grievous. The accused was arrested on 28.9.1997. Mool Chand-accused was medically examined by Dr. P.K. Sharma, who found that he was capable of performing sexual act. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the SDJM, Nuh, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that Mool Chand-accused committed offence punishable u/s 377 read with Section 511 IPC and Suraj Bhan committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Sunita Sharma (P.W.-1), Chokh Ram (P.W.-2), Rahul (P.W.-3), Daya Nand (P.W.-4), Chhote Lal (P.W.-5), Mehender Singh, HC (P.W.-6) and Dr. B.B. Aggarwal, (P.W.-7). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the trial court and their statements were recorded u/s 313 of the Code. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their false implication. They were called upon to enter on their defence but they did not produce any evidence in their defence.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/accused that the accused is standing his protracted trial from the last many years and is not a previous convict. Against the sentence of imprisonment of three months awarded to him u/s 325 IPC, he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of about one month. He prayed that he be released on probation.

While hearing this accused on the quantum of sentence, the trial court recorded his statement and at that time he stated that he was a poor person, having small children and that he was the only bread winner of his family. It was never the case of the prosecution that he is a previous convict. He has been standing his trial since the year 1997. Keeping in view that fact and also the fact that he is not a previous convict and is the only bread winner of his family, I think it proper and expedient to release him on probation instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment. For the injuries suffered by the complainant at the hands of this accused, suitable compensation can be awarded to him.

Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The sentence so imposed upon the accused is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation u/s 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of two years to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during that period and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meanwhile. He is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to Chokh Ram- complainant/injured, for the injuries suffered by him. The fine, if already deposited, shall be adjusted towards the compensation awarded to the complainant/injured. The bonds are to be furnished and the compensation is to be paid/deposited before the trial court within three months of passing of this order, failing which this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

Records of the trial court be returned forthwith.