CIVIL APPEAL 100 of 2002 on 31 December 2008

Facts

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 100 of 2002

Date of decision: 31.12.2008

Ram Lal

... Appellant

Versus

State of H.P.

… Respondent

Coram :

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate Genera.

V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral):

This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, dated 16.3.2000, vide which the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court was modified and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and one month respectively for the offence punishable under Sections 324/323 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.7.1997, at 8.20 P.M., a telephonic information was received from Medical Officer, P.H.C. Amlehar, that one Sattar Deen has been admitted in the hospital in an injured condition due to some quarrel having taken place. On receipt of this information, a Police Officer 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Sattar Deen, at 10.45 P.M., at P.H.C. Amlehar. It was alleged by the injured that they are having a land case going on with Rattan Chand and a such, they are inimical with their family. On 24.7.1997, at about 5.30 P.M. from the boundary of the land one Raj Kumar and his wife were cutting the grass and he asked them not to cut the grass since the case was going on in the Court. At this instance, Raj Kumar and his wife attacked him with dratis, which they were having in their hands and he was given injuries with dratis. He raised an alarm and on hearing his cries, Hussain Mohmmad and Smt. Nazira came to the spot and rescued him. The complainant alleged that he suffered injuries at three places on his head and on his chest and sufficient blood had oozed out. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the Court, which framed a charge under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the petitioner and his wife Smt. Veena Devi, who were tried by the learned trial Court, who held the petitioner and his wife guilty under these Sections and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 324 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for two months under Section 323 I.P.C.. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Smt. Veena Devi, co-accused and the wife of the petitioner, while the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was modified as detailed above.

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

On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that there is statement of the complainant/injured Sattar Deen, who has been examined as PW-1, who has clearly stated about the occurrence and the manner in which he was inflicted the blows with dratis by the petitioner. He stated that he raised an alarm and Nazira Bibi and Hussain Mohd. came to the spot and rescued him. The said Hussain Mohd. has been examined as PW-4 and he has corroborated the version of the complainant that these injuries were inflicted with a drati on his person by the petitioner and his wife. The second eye witness named by the complainant, has been examined as PW-9 Nazira Bibi, who also corroborated the statements of the complainant and the other eye witness mentioned above. She however, stated in the cross-examination that wife of Ram Lal was also having a drati, but she had not inflicted the blow upon the person of the complainant and that may have weighed with the learned Appellate Court in acquitting the said co-accused of the petitioner. However, insofar as the injuries on the person of the complainant are concerned, the statement of the complainant finds corroboration from the statements of both these witnesses and there is nothing in their cross-examination to show that their statements suffers from any infirmity or cannot be relied upon. These statements were further corroborated by the medial evidence as per the testimony of PW-7 Dr. B.K. Dhiman, who has proved the MLC Ext.PW7/A and the complainant had suffered six injuries, which finds due corroboration from the testimony of this witness.

Insofar as the findings of the learned trial Court holding the petitioner guilty under Sections 324/323 I.P.C. are concerned, these were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court and those findings of the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him have not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments and as such, these are liable to be affirmed.

However, on the point of sentence imposed upon the petitioner as modified by the learned Appellate Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made submissions in regard to the sentence that since the petitioner was not a previous convict but was a simpleton villager doing agriculture work and sending him to prison will not reform him and rather there are chances of his mixing with other hardened criminals and as such, he deserves leniency of the Court to be released on probation. It was submitted that the petitioner is a handicap person having problem in his one leg and cannot walk properly and he has to look after his wife and three children and has not been involved in any case. It was submitted that he is a simple villager dependant upon agriculture for his livelihood and sending him to prison will adversely affect his family who is dependant upon him and, therefore, he deserves the leniency of the Court. These submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were not controverted by the learned Deputy Advocate General who also submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the facts of the case as the Court deems proper.

hardened criminals and as such, he deserves leniency of the Court to be

hardened criminals and as such, he deserves leniency of the Court to be Keeping in view the fact that no previous conviction has been alleged or proved as against the petitioner, who is presently a young man of the age of 37 years since he gave his age 27 years during the trial of the case and sending him for a small period to Jail will not reform him and rather there is possibility of his mixing with the other hardened criminals and that may adversely affect his career as well as the family dependant upon him. It was also submitted that he is very poor person and has no sufficient money even to pay any fine or so.

The report of the Probation Officer was called by the Court to be considered, in case, the findings of the learned trial Court are affirmed holding the petitioner guilty for the offences with which he has been charged. I have gone through the report of the District Probation Officer, which also shows that the petitioner has a regular pain in his left leg, is a young man of the age of 35 years and is dependant upon agriculture and he has a wife and three sons, who are school going who are therefore, dependant upon him. It was also reported that no case has been registered against the offender except this one.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the report of t he Probation Officer, I am of the opinion that since nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner committed any other offence after he was sentenced eight years ago by the learned trial Court, he deserves leniency. The petitioner is directed to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his submission of a personal and surety bonds under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, to keep peace and be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of furnishing of personal and surety bonds, which shall be furnished within a period of two months from today before the learned trial Court. A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the District Probation Officer by the learned trial Court, so that the petitioner complies with the conditions under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, during this period of one year. The petitioner shall also be liable to pay a compensation to the extent of Rs.3,000/- under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of two months from today, failing which, the learned trial Court shall take steps for realization of amount, which on deposit shall be payable to the injured/complainant Sattar Deen.

In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is accepted partly. A copy of the judgment alongwith records be returned to the Courts below.

December 31, 2008

(BSS)

(V.K. Ahuja),

Judge