Ramdas Maroti Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra
2004 Latest Caselaw 1304 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.G. Palshikar, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1993 is filed by Ramdas Thakur original accused No. 2 challenging his conviction under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code directing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Though the sentences are ordered separately they were to be suffered concurrently.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1993 is filed by the State seeking setting aside of the acquittal of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1993 for the offences under Sections 302, 342, 323, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and seeking their conviction under those sections.

3. Criminal Revision Application No. 63 of 1993 is for similar prayers by the complainant. In view of the fact that a substantive appeal is filed by the State challenging the acquittal the revision application becomes inconsequential. It is accordingly dismissed.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant and the learned AGP we scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. Considered the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the other accused persons and convicting the appellant Ramdas Thakur under Sections 325 and 323, Indian Penal Code as aforesaid.

5. In our opinion the learned trial Judge has marshalled the evidence correctly and have drawn appropriate points for decision. The decision rendered by the learned Judge on all those points is in accordance with the evidence on record and no fault can be found with the same. We, therefore, approve all the findings given by the learned trial Judge and since we are approving the findings given by him, we do not feel it necessary to give additional reasons for our own reasons or approving the order of conviction and acquittal as made by the learned trial Judge. In our opinion both the appeals, one against the conviction and other against the acquittal is liable to be dismissed.

6. However, the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that original accused No. 2, present appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1993 is now more than 55 years of age and is on bail for last 11 years and more. He states that he has no antecedents of any criminal nature. He has no conviction nor has he been required to furnish bonds for good behaviour in any other manner either under Sections 110 and 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He, therefore, prays that present is a fit case for application of provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he should be released on probation and the conviction need not be implemented immediately.

7. The provision of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code are very clear. It is stipulated that where a person of more than 21 years of age is convicted of an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, may be instead of sentencing him at once, ordered to be released on probation of good conduct by his executing a bond to that effect for a period not exceeding three years. These provisions are indicated to give statutory shape to the principle of reformative theory of punishment. When antecedents of a person convicted are clear he is not guilty of any criminal offence prior to the one for which he has been convicted, his conduct otherwise is good, then he must be given a chance on his furnishing bond for good conduct to prove that what happened was an error and further to prove that he will reform himself as contemplated by the doctrine of reformative punishment. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that during the period of 11 years when this accused was on bail during the pendency of this appeal there is no report of any misuse of bail granted to him by this Court, nor is there any complaint of any other offence committed by him. In view of the above circumstances, therefore, we are of the view, taking into consideration the age, character and antecedents of the accused No. 2 that it is a fit case for application of provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code. We note that benefit of this section was given by the learned trial Judge himself to accused No. 1. In such circumstances refusing such a relief to the accused No. 2 when the appeal against acquittal filed by the State has failed on merits, would be discriminating between the two identically situated persons. In our considered opinion, therefore, this accused/appellant Ramdas Maroti Thakur is liable to be extended the provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code.

8. We accordingly direct that he may not be sentenced and imprisoned immediately. His bail bond shall continue, in addition he shall give a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- for his good conduct for a period of 2 years from the date of his release. All the appeals and revision accordingly disposed of.