Jaswant Singh And Anr. vs State
1992 Latest Caselaw 166 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) Appellants Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Kumar have been convicted under Section 307/324/323/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code and a Fine of Rs.200.00 and in default of payment of Fine, the appellants were to further undergo R.I. for three months. The appellants were further convicted under Section 324/34, Indian Penal Code .and sentenced to Ri for one year and further convicted and sentenced to undergo Rl for three months under Section 323/34, Indian Penal Code All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2) Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 25th August, 1976, the appellants have preferred appeal before this court.

(3) In the appeal, various grounds have been taken such as delay in lodging the F.I.R., and there is no explanation of the delay. The appellants have not been mentioned or their description given in the F.I.R. No identification parade was held in this case. There are material contradictions in the statements of the eye- witnesses. There has been no recovery from the appellants.

(4) Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that though he has a good case on merits, but he is praying that the appellants were less than 21 years of age at the time of the incident. They also have unblemished record. Therefore, they may be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the appellants has mentioned that the incident is of the year 1974. 18 years have elapsed and the appellants have been facing ordeal of criminal proceeding for the last 18 years. They have now been rehabilitated in life and no useful purpose would be served in uprooting and sending them back to serve the remaining sentence.

(5) Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of the court to the pronouncement of Supreme Court in Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh and ors. . In this case, accused Sukhbir, Sukhpal and Surat Singh were sentenced to undergo Ri for four years u/s 307/149, Indian Penal Code and others, namely, Om Pal, Dhan Pal, Mannu and Shri Chand were ordered to undergo Rl for 3 years. High Court maintained their conviction but they were released on probation of good conduct. Each of them was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2500.00 to Joginder who was seriously injured in the incident. In default of payment of compensation, they were directed to serve their sentence. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the submission was that the High Court was too charitable to the accused and the High Court was not justified in extending the benefit under Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and releasing the accused on probation of good conduct.

(6) The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has come to the conclusion that the" High Court has not committed any error in giving benefit of probation of good conduct to the appellants. The court has observed in placing such type of offenders on probation, the court encourages their own sense of responsibility for their future and protect them from the stigma and possible contamination of prison.

(7) When the instant case is examined in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, apart from the fact that the entire occurrence was an outcome of a sudden flair-up, there was no previous animosity between the parties, both the appellants were below 21 years of age at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances while upholding the conviction under Section 307/324/323/34, Indian Penal Code, I set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and in lieu thereof direct that each one of them be released on his entering into a bond with one surety to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year, and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behavior. The learned trial eourt/A-C.M.M. is authorised to take steps to implement the order. If any of the appellants failed to give bond, as directed, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall operate forthwith.

(8) With the modification as indicated above, the the appellants' appeal is disposed of.