Delhi High Court
Ravinder @ Ravi And Anr. vs State on 11 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (56) DRJ 825
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
Notice. Learned Counsel for the State accepts notice.
1. This application is filed on behalf of the appellants seeking the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the facts and circumstances of their case. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that against the same judgment and order one of the accused has already been admitted to the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and, therefore, in this case, which is much milder the appellants may be admitted to the same, benefits of Probation of Offenders Act,
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as also learned Counsel for the State.
3. Crl. Appeal No. 373/99 is taken on Board. Crl. A. No. 373/99:
4. The learned Counsel for the appellants does not challenge the conviction of the appellants and, therefore, I up hold the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants vide order dated 28.7.1999 in Sessions Case No. 444/96 arising out of FIR No. 204/87 Police Station Najafgarh. Learned Counsel for the appellants, having confined his submission only to the question of sentence and in particular the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being given to them, has submitted that the other accused has also been admitted the benefits of this Act and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants also deserve to be treated alike. Learned Counsel for the State does not oppose this prayer.
5. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration all the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that in the present case, the appellants have suffered the agony of trial for the last 12 years. Besides that, they have already undergone a period of two months in custody. There is no allegation that the appellants are previous convict. Keeping in view the circumstances and the fact that the offence of which they have been convicted and the fact that the offence is not punishable for life imprisonment, they deserve the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to be extended.
6. In the circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, the sentence of imprisonment and fine as awarded to them is set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is considered expedient to release them on probation of good conduct and, therefore, it is directed that they be released for a period of two years on their entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- each (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called for during such period and, in the meantime, they shall keep peace and be of a good behaviour. The requisite bonds and the sureties shall be to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/CMM. The fine, if already paid, is directed to be treated as compensation to be paid to the parents of the deceased.
7. With this modification, the order dated 29.7.1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 444/96 is modified.
8. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and the sureties arc discharged once they furnish the requisite bond/surety as directed above.
The appeal stands disposed of Dasti.
