Bombay High Court
Santuk @ Bappasaheb vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 December, 2012
Bench: A. H. Joshi
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
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.
5. 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
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.
(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
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
