Allahabad High Court
Hasim And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 71 of 2014
Revisionist :- Hasim And Ors.
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for revisionists, Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 14.2.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Sitapur whereby Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2013 against the judgment and oder dated 19.10.2013 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 319 of 2010; State Vs. Hashim and others, has been dismissed. By the judgment and order dated 19.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, the revisionists Hashim, Maunir, Altaf and Insaf have been convicted under Section 325 IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The accused persons were also convicted under Section 323/34 IPC for six months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. In short, the prosecution case is that complainant Jalaludeen registered an NCR on 5.11.2001 alleging there in that on 3.11.2001 at about 5:00 p.m. when he was returning after selling milk in Village Arthalpur, the accused persons (revisionist) started abusing him and assaulted with lathis. On the alarm raised by him, Pillu, Nattha and several other persons of the locality reached there, then the accused persons ran away. According to him, he suffered injuries in his hand, head and leg.
4. After registration of N.C.R., the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses. After due investigation, and completing the necessary formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under Sections 323, 325 and 504 IPC against the accused persons.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges under Sections 323/34, 325 and 504 IPC against the accused persons to which they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. Learned Judicial Magistrate after scrutinizing the evidence and statements of the witnesses found the accused persons guilty of the charges levelled against them and sentenced them, as stated above.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.10.2013, the accused persons (revisionists) preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2013 before the appellate court. The appellate court after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that incident took place as alleged by the prosecution, in which injured Jalaludeen received injuries. Therefore he find no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. The appellate court accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the accused persons (revisionists) preferred this criminal revision stating there in that the trial court did not consider the fact that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity, which was developed due to transaction of money between the parties. The findings of conviction recorded by the trial court are not based on appreciation of evidence available on record and the fact that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses.
9. The only submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the occurrence of this case pertains to the year 2001 and after lapse of more than 22 years, it would be of no use to send the revisionists to jail to serve out their sentence. It is further submitted that keeping in view the petty nature of the offence and the fact that the revisionists were not previous convicts as such, they be granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.
10. Learned A.G.A. has not objection to this innocuous prayer.
11. The occurrence of this case has taken place on 5.11.2001 and the revisionists are alleged to have caused injuries by lathis.
12. Keeping in view the nature of offence and the fact that no previous conviction has been proved against the revisionists and that the appellants have a fixed place of abode and also keeping in view the nature of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that the revisionists are entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Since complainant Jalaludeen has received injuries in the said incident, therefore, it is desirable to compensate them by way of damages under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
13. Hence this revision deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. The conviction of the revisionists under the aforesaid sections of IPC is hereby confirmed but instead of sending them to jail to serve out their sentence, they are hereby directed to file personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the effect that for a period of six months, they shall maintain peace and good behaviour. These bonds have to be filed within a period of one month from the date when copy of this order is certified to the court concerned or the revisionists file the same, whichever is earlier. During this period, the revisionist shall remain under the supervision of the concerned District Probation Officer. In case, the bonds are not filed within the stipulated period or after filing the bonds its conditions are violated then the appellants shall be called upon by the court concerned and appropriate sentence shall be passed by the trial court against them. Apart from it, all the revisionists shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- each as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the injured Jalaludeen. If the injured Jalaludeen is not alive, then the compensation amount shall be given to his legal heirs. During the period granted by this Court for filing the bail bonds, the revisionist shall remain on the same bail. In case, the revisionists fail to deposit the compensation amount then the trial court shall be at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law and to ensure payment of the compensation to all the three injured persons.
14.Office is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the court concerned.
15. Office is directed to send back trial court record forthwith, if already received.
Order Date :- 15.3.2023
Virendra
