Tara vs The State

A.S. Bains, J.—This is in appeal by Tara Singh son of Surta, aged IS years against his conviction u/s 324, Indian Penal Code, and release under sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on probation of good conduct for a period of two years on his furnishing a bond in the amount of Rs. 5000/- with one surety for the like amount, and order to pay compensation of Rs. 300/- out of which Rs. 200/- were to be paid to Sube Ram, the complainant, and the rest to the State, u/s 5 of the said Act. The order was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, on 23rd November, 1972.

The broad facts of the Prosecution case are that during the night intervening 26th and 27th December, 1971 at about 11 P.M. the complainant, Sube Ram, was lying in his kiryana shop in village Uldepur Thdroo. At that time the appellant knocked at the door of the complainant and asked him to open the door because the appellant wanted to purchase a cigarette and a match box. The complainant lit the oil lamp and opened the door of his shop. The complainant then supplied him a cigarette arid a match box. On his demanding price for the same, the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and hit the complainant at his throat. It is further alleged that the complainant had kept his Kamri (undershirt) under the bed spread on his cot in which Rs. 56/- and a chit containing the account of his shop for the day were kept. It is said chat the appellant took that kamri also alongwith the money etc. and disappeared from the shop. The complainant raised alarm on which Tara Chand and Maman, P.Ws. came. Both are the complainant. Both these P.Ws., it is alleged, saw the, appellant running away from the shop. After a little while, Gopal, Lambardar, also reached there to whom the complainant narrated the whole story. On the following morning at about 10 A.M., first information report, Exhibit PC, was lodged at the Police Station, Saddar Sonepat. On its basis a case was registered against the appellant. The complainant was medically examined in the Civil Hospital, Sonepat, by Dr. R.N. Narula, on the 27th December, 1971, at about 12 noon who found the following injuries on his person :--

Oblique incised wound 3 x � x � cm. on under surface of left side of chin.

Verticle incised wound 1.5 cm x � cm x 3/4 cm on the front and middle of neck on the larynx, cartilage of the larynx was cut and on coughing and on deep breathing air and blood came out. Voice was husky. He was in a condition of a shock.

In the course of his evidence at the trial the doctor opined that none of the injuries was dangerous to life and that after treatment, both the injuries were completely cured and the power and manner of speech had become normal. Exhibit PA is the corbon copy of the medico-legal report.

The appellant was arrested nine days later, that is on 4th January, 1972, and while in police custody, on 11th January, 19/2, he made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed the kamri inside the bushes under a tree close to a brick-kiln in the area of village Jahari, which he would get recovered. That statement was reduced into writing and is Exhibit PD. Accordingly the appellant got recovered the kamri from the said place in the presence of Lal Singh P.W. and Deep Chand witness and in the pocket of Kamri were also found knife. Exhibit P.1, and the writing, Exhibit P. 3. The same were taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exhibit P.E., which was also attested by the said two witnesses. The writing Exhibit P.3 contained the accounts of the shop for 26th December, 1971.

The prosecution produced six witnesses in support of their allegations. P.W. 1 is Dr. R.N. Narula, who conducted the medicolegal examination of the injured, P.W. 2 is Sube Ram injured, P.W. 3 is Tara son of Munshi Ram, an eye witness. P.W. 4 is Maman son of Munshi Ram another eye-witness (both are nephews of the complainant Sube Ram P.W. 5 is Lal Singh, witness of the recovery of kamri, Exhibit P. 2, and P.W. 6 Krishan Kumar Sub Inspector is investigating officer.

The appellant denied all the allegations against him and said that he had been falsely implicated by the complainant in con-piracy with his nephews and Karan Singh, Lal Singh and Gopal Singh. In defence, he produced a certified copy of the order, Exhibit DC, passed on 27th April, 1972 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonepat, in a case under sections 107/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code brought by Karan Singh against him and his father Surta alias Surta Singh. This order, Exhibit D C, is not of much help to the appellant as it has not been executed by the complainant Sube Ram.

The Complainant has broadly supported the prosecution version. His nephews Tara and Maman have also appeared as P.Ws. 3 and 4. Roth of them deposed that on hearing the cry of Sube Ram, they rushed to his shop and then they found the appellant rushing out of the shoo with the kamri Exhibit P. 2. P.W. 5 is a witness of discovery. He says that the appellant was interrogated in the police custody in his presence and that the appellant consequently led to the recovery of kamri, Exhibit P. 2 and in the pocket of the kamri, knife, Exhibit P. 1 and writing Exhibit P. 3, were found.

The Learned Counsel for the appellant did not address the arguments on merits, but in view of the tender age of the appellant, prayed for reduction of the period of probation and also that the sentence of fine may also be condoned as the appellant is not an earning hand. This prayer of the Learned Counsel seems to have some force. The appellant was bound down on 23rd November, 1972 and now it is 14th October. 1974 Only one month and 8 days are left in the expiry of the period of his probation. During the period of his probation, he has not committed any offence and his conduct and character remained upright. There is no allegation of the State that during the period of probation, the appellant, in any way, indulged in such acts as amounted, to branch of peace. I, therefore, reduce the probationary period to that already expired. I further order that the amount of compensation of Rs. 300/- be reduced to Rs. 200/- which is payable to the complainant and that Rs. 100/- if paid to the State, shall be refunded.