Pooran @ Vimal Kishore vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1790 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 31 of 2013
 

 
Revisionist :- Pooran @ Vimal Kishore
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K. Tewari,C.L.Dixit,Manoj Kumar Shukla,Ram Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, Atul Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Atul Verma, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This present revision has been preferred with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 19.01.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 1994, under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC, Police Station-Kamlapur, District-Sitapur as well as judgment and order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.2582 of 2006, under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Kamlapur, District-Sitapur with a further prayer to admit the present revision on bail to the applicant/revisionist.

As per prosecution case, it is mentioned that NCR was lodged by the complainant Smt. Dhan Devi wife of Ram Saran mentioning that on 23.07.1994, she had gone to plough the field with the help of tractor. She further stated in the FIR that accused came to the place of occurence and they assaulted the complainant due to which, she received injury. She further stated that accused-revisionists wanted to take forcefully possession over the land in question.

The matter was investigated by the police and charge-sheet was filed under Section 323, 325, 504 IPC and charges were framed on 15.03.1996. It is further mentioned that during trial one accused namely, Babbu @ Shiv Kant has died therefore, trial was abated. The prosecution has produced P.W.-1 (Dhan Devi), P.W.-2 (Ram Saran), P.W.-3 (Doobari), P.W.-4 (Chhote Lal), P.W.-5 (Anoop Kumar) and P.W.-6 (Dal Chand Maurya).

The accused were confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the charges and they submitted that they were falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity. The 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur conducted the trial and conviction order was passed on 28.05.2012 and the accused namely, Pooran @ Vimal Kishore, Babloo @ Narendra Kumar and Shanu @ Sanjay Kumar were convicted with one year simple imprisonment under Section 323/34, three years simple imprisonment under Section 325/34 IPC and one year simple imprisonment under Section 504/34 IPC along with default clause of Rs.500/-.

Against the order dated 28.05.2012, the appeal was preferred by the revisionist and the same was decided on 19.01.2013, in which accused have been exonerated from the charges of Section 504 IPC. However, the appellate court has modified the order and two years simple imprisonment was awarded under Section 325/34 along with default of Rs.500/- each and six months simple imprisonment have been awarded under Section 323/34 IPC.

Being aggrieved against the order dated 19.01.2013, the accused have preferred this criminal revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the incident took place on 23.07.1994 i.e. 28 years back and the relationship between the parties is cordial and there is no criminal incident between the parties uptil now. He has submitted that the revisionist may be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958, because the revisionists have no previous criminal history and after that incident they have not committed any other crime.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sada Shiv and 2 others Vs. The State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2001 and has referred paras 10, 11 and 13, which are extracted as follows:-

10. In this regard, Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is relevant. This provision deals with the powers of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct which is as follows:-

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

"(1) 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 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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."

11. Thus the philosophy of the Probation of Offender Act 1958 is reformative. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 S.C. 444, while discussing the purpose and object of the Act, has observed in para no. 4, as follows:-

"4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the condition laid down in the appropriate provision of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act."

13. It is well settled principle of law that provision of law of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is beneficial legislation which has been made by legislature for reformation of accused who is first offender and has not been convicted for serious offences.

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the revisionists but could not dispute the factual aspect as has been advanced by the counsel for the revisionists. He has submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence, the revisionists are not entitled to avail the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of records, it is evident that incident took place long back on 23.07.1994 and with the pace of time, the parties have developed cordial relation between them and they have no grudge for each other; the revisionist have no criminal history to their credit and they are living their peaceful life. Further, looking into the old age of the revisionists as has been informed by the counsel for the the revisionists that the revisionist no.1 is 65 years of age, revisionist no.2 is 55 years and the revisionist no.3 is of 50 years and also keeping in mind the fact that now they are living a happy life coupled with the other fact that the offence which was committed by them was due to spur of the moment and thereafter during these long years of time, they never committed any other offence, therefore, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 is extended to the revisionists.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision is partly allowed.

The judgment and order dated 19.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 1994, under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC, Police Station-Kamlapur, District-Sitapur is modified to the extent that instead of sending the accused-revisionists namely, Pooran @ Vimal Kishore, Babloo @ Narendra Kumar and Shanu @ Sanjay Kumar to jail, they are given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. They are directed to file two sureties bonds of Rs.20,000/- each and personal bond of same amount to the effect that they shall maintain peace and good behavior and shall not commit any offence during the period of two years. The bonds aforesaid be filed by them within two months from the date of judgment before District Probation Officer, Sitapur.

A copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the District Judge, Sitapur with immediate effect for compliance.

File is consigned to record.

Order Date :- 29.4.2022

Ashutosh