Phool Chandra vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 12309 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved
 

 
Court No. 45
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1817 of 1995
 
Appellant :- Phool Chandra
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Singh,Nisha Singh Parihar,R. P. Singh Parihar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri R.P. Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been instituted against the judgement and order dated 20.10.1995 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 508 of 1990, State Vs. Deshraj Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 1988 u/s 395/397/412 and connected Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1995, State Vs. Phool Chandra, arising out of Case Crime No. 94 of 1988 under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S.- Jafarganj, District- Fatehpur. The trial court convicted and sentenced co-accused Deshraj Singh Thakur, Shiv Kumar Yadav and Lakhan Lal under Section 380 IPC. They were acquitted from the charge under Section 395 IPC. The trial court convicted appellant accused Phool Chandra under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him two years rigorous imprisonment. The trial court acquitted Phool Chandra from the charge under Sections 395 and 412 IPC. The trial court also acquitted appellant accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act. There is no criminal appeal filed by the State or informant against acquittal of appellant-accused u/s 395 IPC and 25 Arms Act. Thus, the trial court's order acquitting the accused u/s 395 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act has become final.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that in the night of 15/16.12.1998, accused Deshraj Singh, Thakur, Shiv Kumar Yadav and Lakhanlal Lohar along with two or three other persons entered in the house of informant, Murlidhar through a wooden ladder. Due to the noise of knocking, the informant, Murlidhar awoke and saw that about 5 or 6 persons including the above accused were carrying household material after committing the theft. The informant raised alarm then his neighbours, Rajwa, Banshi and Faujilal came on the spot, who saw the accused carrying the household materials. The witnesses chased them but the accused could not be apprehended. The accused committed theft of the clothes which were being sold by the informant. Later on, the informant prepared a written report and went to the police station on 16.12.1988, where he lodged the F.I.R. at 9.30 a.m. The case was registered as Case Crime No. 91 of 1988 u/s 457/380 I.P.C. and investigation was started.

4. On 26.12.1988, Station Officer, S.I. Sukhvinder Singh along with some constables was returning to the police station after taking a round of the area. When the police party reached at the curve of Lalpur, they saw a person. When the police party asked him, then he turned backside. Suspecting the miscreant, the police surrounded and apprehended him. On enquiry, he told his name, Phool Chandra and a search was made. Then one country-made pistol, along with two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. He was having a bag in which two cotton sarees, two quilt cover and one piece of cloth were recovered. During interrogation, the accused admitted that he was also amongst the dacoits who committed dacoity at the house of Murlidhar in the night of 15.12.1988. The recovered material was kept under separate sealed cover. The recovery memo was prepared and the accused was also kept Bapurdah. The recovered material and the accused were brought at the police station where the recovered material was deposited in the Malkhana and the accused was kept in the lock up. The F.I.R. was lodged and a case was registered against accused, Phool Chandra under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Crime No. 94/88. The investigation of this case was also started with Crime No. 91 of 1988. During investigation, identification of the recovered looted property was conducted. During the investigation, the case was converted into u/s 395/397 and 412 I.P.C. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 01.03.1989 u/s 395/397/412 I.P.C. against all the accused. A separate charge-sheet u/s 25 of Arms Act against accused, Phool Chandra was also submitted on 19.2.1989. During investigation, the accused were arrested. Thereafter, the accused were committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial.

5. On 21.11.1990, the trial court framed charge under Section 395 IPC against co-accused Deshraj Singh, Shiv Kumar Yadav and Lakhanlal. The trial court also framed charge against appellant accused Phool Chandra under Section 395, 412 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

6. In order to prove the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Raj Wajdwa, P.W.2 Bhaiyaddin, P.W.3 Murlidhar, P.W.4 Constable Ramesh Chandra, P.W.5 Constable Chakki Lal, P.W.6 Suraj Bhan Srivastava, Executive Magistrate and P.W.7 S.I. Sukhvinder Singh. The prosecution also produced written report, chik report, copy of G.D., site plan, recovery memo of country-made pistol, cartridges and looted property, which were recovered from the possession of accused, Phool Chandra, chik report of crime no. 94/1988 u/s 25 of the Arms Act, copy of G.D., site plan and charge-sheet in documentary evidence. The prosecution also produced sanction of the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, for prosecution of accused Phool Chandra u/s 25 of Arms Act.

7. The statement of accused, Phool Chandra, was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police due to enmity. Accused, Phool Chandra denied recovery of country-made pistol and cartridges and looted property from his possession and stated that he was arrested from his house and falsely implicated by the police. No defence evidence was produced by the accused appellant Phool Chandra.

8. The chik F.I.R. of this case was prepared by P.W.4 Constable Ramesh Chandra Singh. He proved the chik report (Ext.Ka.2) and stated that on 16.12.1988, he was posted at Police Station- Jafarganj. He prepared chik report on the basis of written report produced by the informant. He also made entries in the G.D., the copy of which is (Ext.Ka.3).

9. In cross-examination, P.W.4 Constable Ramesh Chandra Singh stated that in his opinion, prima facie case was made u/s 457/380 I.P.C., therefore, the case was registered u/s 380/457 I.P.C. The information was transmitted to the Superior Officers.

10. The investigation of this case was started by S.I. Bazilal Yadav. P.W.7 Station Officer, Sukhvinder Singh was also with him when S.I. Bazilal Yadav visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. He also inspected the lantern of Murlidhar and prepared its supurdaginama (Ext.Ka.6). This witness also inspected the torches of Rajwa and Faujilal and prepared their supurdaginama which is (Ext.Ka.7). During investigation, it was found that the case falls u/s 395/397 I.P.C., therefore, on the oral direction of the Circle Officer, the case was converted u/s 395/397 I.P.C. and investigation was transferred to P.W.7 S.I. Sukhvinder Singh. Remaining part of investigation was conducted by him.

11. PW 7 S.I. Sukhvinder Singh stated in his evidence that during investigation on 26.12.1988, he along with other constables was returning to the police station. When he reached at the curve near Lalpur Katheriya, they saw one person coming on the road. When that person was asked, he took turn and started to run. He was chased and surrounded at a distance of 20 paces and was arrested at about 5.10 a.m. On enquiry, he told his name Phool Chandra and on search, one country-made pistol, 12 bore, two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of this accused. The accused was also having a bag from which two cotton saris, two quilt cover and one piece of cloth were recovered. All these materials were kept under separate sealed cover and recovery memo (Ext.Ka.8) was prepared which was signed by the witnesses. This witness also proved site-plan (Ext.Ka.9). PW 7 Sukhvinder Singh deposed in his evidence the accused and the recovered materials were brought at the police station, where the chik report was prepared by P.W.5 Constable Chakki Lal on the basis of recovery memo. The witness also proved chik report (Ext.Ka.10) prepared in the hand-writing and signature of P.W.5 Constable Chakki Lal. PW 7 S.I. Sukhvinder Singh proved entries in the G.D. of criminal case (Ext.Ka.11) made by Constable Chhaki Lal. He deposed that he recorded the statements of the witnesses. He stated that during investigation, test identification of the looted property was conducted. After receiving the result of identification, he submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.12).

12. PW 7 Sukhvinder Singh also proved the site-plan (Ext.Ka.13) which was prepared by S.I. Bazilal Yadav. The investigation of the case u/s 25 of the Arms Act was completed by S.I. Chunnalal Gautam who also prepared site-plan and submitted charge-sheet. S.I. Chunna Lal Gautam was not examined by the prosecution. His signature and hand-writing were proved by PW 7 Sukhvinder Singh. The site-plan is (Ext.Ka.14) and the charge-sheet is (Ext.Ka.15). PW 7 Sukhvinder Singh has deposed that on 16.12.1988, the case was registered in his presence u/s 457/380 I.P.C. and the investigation was entrusted to S.I. Bazilal Yadav. On 18.12.1988, Circle Officer, Jafarganj made surprise inspection of the police station who gave directions that the above case be converted into u/s 395/397 I.P.C. On his direction, the case was converted u/s 395/397 I.P.C. and P.W.7 S.I. Sukhvinder Singh, Station Officer himself took the investigation of this case in his hand. At that time, accused Phool Chandra was not involved in Crime No. 91/1988 but during investigation, it was found that he was having the looted property, therefore, a case was registered against him u/s 412 I.P.C.

13. PW 7 S.I. Sukhvinder Singh has proved the bag containing two cotton sarees, two quilt-covers and one piece of cloth (Material Exts. 1 to 5) allegedly recovered from the possession of appellant accused, Phool Chandra.

14. P.W.6 Suraj Bhan Srivastava proved the identification memo (Ext.Ka.5) which was prepared by him regarding the identification of looted property. He stated that looted property was kept for identification along with some similar articles.

15. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire evidence on record.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant, Phool Chandra, has argued that prosecution has failed to prove that stolen articles were recovered from his possession. The prosecution has also failed to prove that appellant accused Phool Chandra kept the goods in his possession knowing that they were stolen property.

17. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has argued that co-accused Deshraj Singh, Shiv Kumar Yadav and Lakhan Lal have been convicted by the trial court in charge under Section 380 and 457 IPC. He also argued that the recovery of stolen articles from the possession of appellant accused Phool Chandra having been duly proved he has been rightly convicted under Section 411 IPC.

18. The word "stolen property" has been defined in Section 410 IPC which is as follows :-

"410. Stolen Property. Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designed as "stolen property",whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property."

19. The offence under Section 411 has been defined as follows:-

"411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

20. In Mir Naqvi Askari Vs. CBI 2 (2009) 15 SCC 643, the Apex Court has held about the offence under Section 411 as follows :-

"The person must have the knowledge that it is a stolen property. This section as also the succeeding sections are directed not against the principal offender, e.g., a thief, robber or misappropriator but against the class of persons who trade in stolen articles and are receivers of stolen property. Principal offenders are therefore, outside the scope of this section. Accordingly the conviction of the principal offender is also not a prerequisite to the conviction of the receiver of stolen property under this section."

21. In Trimbak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39, the Apex Court (per Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan) has held that in order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove :

"5. (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property..."

22. P.W.5 Constable Chakki Lal deposed on oath that on 26.12.1988 at 5.10 a.m., he was taking area round with Station Officer, Sri Sukhvinder Singh along with other constables. When the police party was returning to the police station and reached at the curve of Lalpur Katheria, the police party saw a person coming from the side of the Rind River. Seeing that person, Station Officer asked him then he started to run towards backside. He was chased and apprehended by the police party at about 5.10 a.m. On enquiry, he told his name Phool Chandra. On search, one country-made pistol and two cartridges were recovered from his possession. He was having a bag from which two cotton saries, two quilt covers and one piece of cloth was recovered. The recovered material were kept under separate sealed covers and the recovery memo was prepared on the spot on the dictation of S.I. Sukhvinder Singh and the signatures of the witnesses were obtained. One sealed bundle was opened in which two cotton saris, two quilt covers and one piece of cloth were found which were recovered from the possession of accused, Phool Chandra. These articles are (material Exts.1 to 5). The accused along with the recovered materials was brought at the police station, where the case was registered against him. P.W.5 Constable Chakki Lal was not cross-examined by the defence side.

23. The arrest of appellant accused Phool Chandra and recovery of stolen quilt-cover, sarees and cloth has also been proved by the evidence of P.W.7 S.I. Sukhvinder Singh who had arrested the appellant accused Phool Chandra and recovered aforesaid articles from his possession. He has proved the recovery memo relating to appellant's arrest and the recovery memo of stolen property (Ext.Ka-4). He has also proved the articles i.e. two quilt cover, two cotton sarees and one another cloth which have been recovered from the possession of the appellant accused (Material Ext.1 to 5). P.W.7 Sukhvinder Singh has also proved by his evidence the arrest of the appellant accused Phool Chandra who was carrying a bag containing the aforesaid articles. P.W.3 Murlidhar, informant has identified the aforesaid articles (Material Exts. 1 to 5) as stolen from his house. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 Murlidhar, P.W.5 Chhaki Lal and P.W.7 Sukhvinder Singh nothing emerges which may raise doubt about their evidence regarding recovery of aforesaid stolen goods from the possession of appellant accused Phool Chandra.

24. The evidence of PW 5 Chhakki Lal regarding the recovery of aforesaid stolen articles from the possession of appellant accused Phool Chandra has not been challenged on behalf of the appellant accused in his cross-examination. His evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7 S.I. Sukhvinder Singh. The informant Murlidhar was a hawker who used to carry clothes and sell them on streets. The articles recovered from the possession of appellant accused were new clothes. The appellant accused has not claimed ownership of those articles.

25. These articles were recognized by informant Murlidhar, Sukh Nandan and Kallu who is brother of informant Murlidhar in test identification proceeding conducted by Identification Magistrate, PW 6 Suraj Bhan Srivastava, therefore the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant accused Phool Chandra for charge under Section 411 IPC.

26. From the above discussion of law and evidence, it is concluded that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that a bag containing two quilt-covers, two sarees and one cloth (material Ext. 1 to 5) was recovered from the possession of appellant accused Phool Chandra. He had possession of these materials exhibits knowing that they were stolen property. The appeal against conviction of appellant accused under Section 411 IPC is without merit and liable to be dismissed.

27. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant accused is a poor person. The alleged recovery of stolen property from the appellant has taken place about thirty five years ago. The appellant accused has no criminal antecedents in his credit. Subsequent to the present criminal case, the appellant accused has no other criminal case registered against him. The appellant may be given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and be released on probation.

28. Learned AGA has opposed the appellant accused being given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 but he could not deny that the appellant accused has no criminal antecedents and after present criminal case, no other criminal case was registered against him.

29. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads 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."

30. A similar provision finds place in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 360 Cr.P.C. provides :

"360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition.

(1) When any person not under twenty- one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty- one years of age or any woman is- convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, 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 where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub- section (2).

(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub- section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.

(3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.

(4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.

(5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law: Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this sub- section inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted.

(6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section.

(7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender under sub- section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions.

(8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension.

(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.

(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958 ), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960 ), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders."

31. These statutory provisions very emphatically lay down the reformatory and correctional object of sentencing and obligates the trial court as well as appellate courts to give benefit of probation in fit cases as provided under law. Unfortunately, this branch of law has not been much utilized by the courts. It becomes more relevant and important in our system of administration of justice where trial is often concluded after a long time and by the time decision assumes finality, the very purpose of sentencing looses its efficacy as with the passage of time the penological and social priorities change and there remains no need to inflict punishment of imprisonment, particularly when the offence involved is not serious and there is no criminal antecedent of the accused persons. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.

32. In the case of Subhash Chand and others vs. State of U.P., 2015 Lawsuit (Alld) 1343, this court has emphatically laid down the need to apply the law of probation and give benefit of the beneficial legislation to accused persons in appropriate cases. This court issued following directions to all trial courts and appellate courts:

"It appears that the aforesaid beneficial legislation has been lost sight of and even the Judges have practically forgotten this provision of law. Thus, before parting with the case, this Court feels that I will be failing in discharge of my duties, if a word of caution is not written for the trial courts and the appellate courts. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to circulate copy of this Judgment to all the District Judges of U.P., who shall in turn ensure circulation of the copy of this order amongst all the judicial officers working under him and shall ensure strict compliance of this Judgment. The District Judges in the State are also directed to call for reports every months from all the courts, i.e. trial courts and appellate courts dealing with such matters and to state as to in how many cases the benefit of the aforesaid provisions have been granted to the accused. The District Judges are also directed to monitor such cases personally in each monthly meeting. The District Judges concerned shall send monthly statement to the Registrar General as to in how many cases the trial court/appellate court has granted the benefit of the aforesaid beneficial legislation to the accused. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General for immediate compliance."

33. In addition to the above judgment of this Court, this Court finds that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & others (2004) 7 SCC 659, giving the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused has observed as below:

"The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the incident is of the year 1990. The parties are educated and neighbors. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be granted to the accused. The prayer made on behalf of the accused seems to be reasonable. The accident is more than ten years old. The dispute was between the neighbors over a trivial issue of claiming of drainage. The accident took place in a fit of anger. All the parties educated and also distantly related. The incident is not such as to direct the accused to undergo sentence of imprisonment. In our opinion, it is a fit case in which the accused should be released on probation by directing them to execute a bond of one year for good behaviour."

34. Similarly, in Jagat Pal Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 3622, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given the benefit of probation while upholding the conviction of accused persons under Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC and has released the accused persons on executing a bond before the Magistrate for maintaining good behaviour and peace for the period of six months.

35. In the light of above discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety nor any jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order of the court below. The conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 411 I.P.C. is upheld and is not required to be disturbed.

36. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as keeping in view the position of law as mentioned above and considering that the incident had taken place about 35 years back and considering the provisions of Section 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 it appears justified that the appellants accused Phool Chandra be released under Section 4 (1) of the Act on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) and two sureties each of the like amount. During this period, he shall maintain good conduct and keep peace and on breach of this condition, he shall appear before the Court to receive punishment.

37. The criminal appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above.

38. Let a certified copy of this order along with record be sent to the court concerned for compliance.

Order Date :- 21.04.2023

KS/Pratima