Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajesh Thakur @ Rajesh Kumar ... vs The State Of West Bengal on 16 December, 2022
16.12.2022
Court No.35
Item No. 5 CRR 2105 of 2015
D.Hira
Rajesh Thakur @ Rajesh Kumar Prasad
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra.
... for the petitioner
Mr. Pronojit Roy.
... for the defacto complainant
Mr. Pravas Bhattacharya,
Mr. M.F.A. Begg.
... for the State
This is a revision by the petitioner/convict to challenge the
impugned judgment dated 8th June, 2015 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Re-Designated Court at Paschim Medinipur, in
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2012.
By dint of the said judgment, the Sessions Judge has affirmed the
judgment of the Magistrate, 5th Court at Medinipur in G.R. Case No.
1577 of 2007 under Sections 341/323/427 of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, by both the Courts the present petitioner was
convicted for the offence as mentioned above and were sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.
The petitioner's challenge to the same in this revision is based on
a very small spectrum that is the petitioner accepts the judgment of
both the Courts. Though he has prayed for an order of this Court to
release him on probation of good conduct.
Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working
as a carpenter under the complainant and they developed between
themselves some dispute regarding payment of money. He has pointed
out to the relevant portion of the impugned judgment to submit that
during trial and from the judgment of the Magistrate as well as the First
Appellate Court, the dispute between the parties regarding transaction
of money shall be apparent.
It is further submitted that the fact of the convict/petitioner
having executed a fatal blow with the help of a piece of brick upon the
injured victim/complainant is proved in this trial and the petitioner
does not dispute the same. However, it is submitted that the petitioner
being a person labouring hard to earn his livings and possibly only
person in the family to earn breads for other members also, may be
considered to be released under the provisions of Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958.
Mr. Pronojit Roy, learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite
party, however, raises objections to such contention and prayer of the
petitioner.
Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite party has pointed out
to the relevant portion of the impugned judgment to show the nature
and gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner/convict as proved
in the trial particularly on the basis of the medical details and
submitted that he should be committed to prison as directed by the two
Courts below.
Considered the submissions, perused the materials available on
record. On careful consideration of the impugned judgment, it appears
that there has been certain dispute as regards some monetary affairs
between the parties, that may be with regard to the remuneration of the
present petitioner, which he was supposed to get from the defacto
complainant. The dispute arose concerning the same and the
unfortunate event happened. After examination of witnesses and other
materials the prosecution has proved the case and the allegations
against the present petitioner have been brought home in order to
result to his conviction and sentence of six (6) months of imprisonment.
The relevant portion of the said Act speaks 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."
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the resultant
conviction and the period of sentence and also the post conviction
conduct of the present petitioner regarding which there is no adverse
report till date, I am of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner in
this revision that he may be released under the provision of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 should be allowed. One should also not lose sight
of the fact, that it is nobody's case that the petitioner has ever been a
habitual offender. All these prompt this Court to find it expedient to
release him on probation of good conduct for a period of one year from
the date of this order. Therefore, notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law the petitioner is directed to be released, instead of
abiding by the sentence.
It is further directed that the petitioner shall find bond of
Rs.10,000/- with two registered sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district.
The petitioner shall appear before the Court whenever called for during
the period of probation. In the meantime, during this period the
petitioner shall maintain peace and good behaviour.
With the above directions, this revision is allowed.
Accordingly, CRR no. 2105 of 2015 is disposed of.
All pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
