1 Crirev. No.54/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2010
Santuk @ Bappasaheb s/o Bapurao
Kharat ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & ors. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner;
Ms Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1;
Mr N.K. Kakade, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 5
CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J.
DATE : December 14, 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.
2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
3. Respondents no.2 to 5 were tried before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Selu for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 323, 504 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Regular Criminal Case No.60 of 2004. It appears that the charge-sheet ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:29:49 ::: 2 Crirev. No.54/10 in respect of fifth accused, namely, Kalyan Bhagwan Kharat was submitted to the Juvenile Court.
4. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate convicted respondents no.2 to 5 for offence punishable under sections 323 and 324 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents no.2 to 5 of the offence punishable under section 504 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, instead of sentencing the respondents no.2 to 5, directed their release on furnishing a bond of good behaviour of Rs.1,000/- each with one surety for good behaviour for a period of one year under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Magistrate further directed that in the event of any breach of bond of good behaviour, respondents no.2 to 5 be called upon for hearing and to receive a sentence. The learned Magistrate further directed to pay Rs.500/-
each i.e. Rs.2,000/- in total by way of compensation to the original complainant Santuk Kharat and injured Manik Kharat.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:29:49 ::: 3 Crirev. No.54/105. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order rendered by the learned Magistrate, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2007 in the Sessions Court at Parbhani.
6. The learned Sessions Judge at Parbhani, partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment of the learned Magistrate, as regards the point of compensation, as follows :-
"... ... ...
(v) The accused are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/-. The total compensation from accused no.1 to 4 is Rs.8,000/-. The compensation amount of Rs.4,000/- be paid to complainant Santuk Kharat and Rs.4,000/- to injured Manik Kharat."
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order rendered by the Sessions Court, the original complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Application.
8. The revision petitioner has, inter alia, prayed that the respondents no.2 to 5 be awarded substantive sentence for imprisonment, by setting aside the benefit extended to them under the provisions of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:29:49 ::: 4 Crirev. No.54/10 Probation of Offenders Act.
9. Heard learned Advocates for both sides and perused the impugned judgment.
10. The point urged before this Court is summarised as follows :-
Whenever the sentence of imprisonment is ordered in that event alone the award of compensation is permissible. Since the accused have been given benefit of probation, sentence remains in abeyance and hence, award of compensation would not follow. Therefore, as necessary corollary of award of compensation, award of probation by the judgment and order under revision deserves to be interfered, and the sentence must follow and the probation ought not be awarded.
11. On considering the material on record and respective contentions, what is perceived is as follows :-
Learned Sessions Judge may have in his mind :-
(a) That it is a case fit for conviction and also found that substantive sentence would be too harsh and would not do justice.
(b) Rather justice would be done if probation is granted by deferring the sentence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:29:49 ::: 5 Crirev. No.54/10
(c) That justice to victim by way of award of compensation was imperative and that this could be done even without ordering substantive sentence.
(d) Ordering award of probation and still ordering payment of amount by way of compensation are not mutually exclusive and an order for both these together could be legally passed.
(e) Therefore, learned Sessions Court has ordered payment of compensation.
12. Petitioner's submission that as a corollary of award of compensation, the substantive sentence must follow, is fallacious. It is de hors the concept of compensation to victim as an effort to undo little of the injustice caused to the victims.
13. Petitioner's attempt and exercise to pursue for a substantive sentence, amounts to ask for the "debt as well as for pound of flesh".
14. A judgment which results in doing justice between the parties should be welcomed, than ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:29:49 ::: 6 Crirev. No.54/10 criticizing it barely on technicalities of law.
15. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that it is not a fit case for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
16. Revision Application is dismissed and Rule is discharged.
(A.H. JOSHI, J.) amj/crirev54.10 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:29:49 :::