Chander Wati And Ors. vs State And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1021 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi who vide his order dated 11th March, 2003, has held the petitioners guilty under Section 323/34 IPC and further by his order dated 17th March, 2003 has sentenced the petitioners to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.2000/- each.

2. Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, states that this is a case which has gone on for more than 20 years and majority of the petitioners have already become senior citizens. He also submits that the compensation has already been paid and that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners in this case are given the benefit under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Counsel for respondent no.2/complainant, on the other hand, contends that he would only be satisfied if the petitioners are sent to jail. He is prepared to return twice the amount of compensation awarded. He submits that the complainant has been fighting the battle for 23 years and according to him justice demands that the petitioners be sent to jail for term of imprisonment imposed. He relies upon judgments of the Supreme Court where it is laid down that sentence should be befitting the offence and also that the plight of the victim should be taken into consideration.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the material on record, I am of the opinion that in the present case, where the petitioners do not challenge conviction but confine arguments only to the question of sentence, this a fit case where this court should interfere. The petitioners have seen trial for over 22 years, majority of them are senior citizens and the offence under Section 323 is bailable in nature. Compensation has been paid and there is nothing on record to suggest that any of the accused persons has misbehaved or was a previous convict or, as a matter of fact, even a subsequent convict nor are they facing any trial in any other matter.

5. It also comes to my notice that the manner in which the respondent has argued this petition shows that he is interested in his pound of flesh. It is not the ends of justice that matters but the instinct to retaliate, that is urging him on. Whatever may be the reason, it is for the court to decide as to what sentence requires to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence.

6. As already noted above the conviction is under Section 323 IPC, the sentence awarded is three months simple imprisonment with Rs.2,000/- compensation. The petitioners have maintained good behavior and I see no reason why I should, at this belated stage, require them to undergo imprisonment when the law recognizes an alternative under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Looking into the totality of the circumstances, while upholding the order of conviction, I extend the benefit under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and release the petitioners on probation of good conduct. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioners be released for a period of three months on their entering into a personal bond each in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during such period and, in the meantime, the petitioners shall keep peace and be of good behavior. The requisite bonds to be furnished by the petitioners and the sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court/CMM/ACMM.

The order of compensation already paid shall remain in tact.

6. With this modification, the order under challenge is upheld. The petition stands disposed of. The petitioners are on bail since December, 2003, the bail bonds and sureties stand discharged. Fresh bonds and sureties, as directed to be furnished, shall be furnished within a period of two week failing which the sentence awarded by the trial court shall come into effect.