Madhya Pradesh High Court
Halkey Betu @ Jayant Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 20 December, 2023
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 2Oth OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1564 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1. HALKEY BETU @ JAYANT SINGH,
S/O SHRI TODAN SINGH YADAV AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MUNNU @ HARJEET SINGH S/O
JUGRAJ SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT
27 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST
BOTH R/O GRAMME SINHAI POLICE
STATION AJAYGARH DISTT. PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI JAYANT PRAKASH PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SMT. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )
RESERVED ON : 04.12.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.12.2023
2
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, this court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the
judgment of the conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2001 passed in
Special Case No. 2/2001 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Panna, whereby both the appellants have been convicted for
the offence punishable under Sections 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and under Section
323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.
500/- each, with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in short is that complainant None Lal lodged a report
at police station Ajaygarh Distt. Panna that both the appellants assaulted him
with lathi on 04.10.2000, as he had gone for harvesting crop in village Simra
in the field Silyano. Both the appellants assaulted him with lathi as their
goats went to his field. On account of such assault he sustained injury and his
two teeths had broken.
3. He lodged FIR at police station then police after completing
investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants for having
committing offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B, 326/34
IPC and 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. Trial Court after considering the evidence convicted and sentenced
appellants as mentioned hereinabove.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the appellants filed this appeal on
the ground that learned trial Court did not consider the omission and
contradictions of the statement of the compliant. The police did not
investigate the report after taking down the report made by the complainant
himself. Police reached on the spot after 15 days of the report creates doubt.
There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses which are not supported by the medical evidence. So
he pray for acquittal.
6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supported the judgment
of the trial Court and pray for rejecting the appeal.
7. Now question arises whether this appeal should be allowed or not.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
record, first question arises that whether complainant has received injuries on
the date of incident i.e. 04.10.2000.
9. Considered the evidence of P.W. 2 None Lal, he stated in examination-
in-chief that he received the injuries in a quarrel. He received injuries on his
head, mouth and due to that his two teeths had been broken. He lodged FIR
and police sent him for medical examination. P.W. 5 Dr. V.S. Upadhyaya
who had examined P.W. 2 None Lal, found eight injuries on the body of P.W.
2 None Lal at that day and found that two teeths had broken. Medical report
is Ex. P-5 and X-ray report is P-7.
10. So considering the evidence of P.W. 2 None Lal and medical witness
P.W. 3 Khillu, it was proved that on the date of incident i.e. 04.10.2000, P.W.
5 Dr. V.S. Upadhyaya received injuries in quarrel.
11. Now question arises whether appellants caused injuries to the
complainant P.W. 2 None Lal with common intention ?
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are so many
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the P.W. 2 None Lal which is
not supported by the medical evidence. It is further submitted by him that
P.W. 1 Baldev is real brother of the P.W. 2 None Lal, so he is interested
witness. He further submitted that P..W. 3 Khillu and P.W. 4 Lutti, P.W. 6
Munnu Lal who are interested witnesses have not supported the prosecution
evidence.
13. It is true that P.W. 1 Baldev and P.W. 6 Munnu Lal are bother and
father of complainant P.W. 2 None Lal. So they are related to each other, but
The Apex Court held in case of Smt. Dalbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab
Cr.L.J, 1976 Page 418 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court observed that :-
"Mere witnesses are related to each other, so on
this ground there evidence cannot be discarded, if are
reliable, cogent and truthworthy."
14. Considering the evidence of P.W. 2 None Lal, it was found that he
was found intact in his cross-examination. There is no substantial omission
and contradiction in his evidence. His evidence was supported by medical
evidence and P.W. 3 Khillu who is not an eyewitness, but he has stated in his
examination-in-chief that on the date of incident, None Lal stated them that
appellants have assaulted to him. It is also necessary that always case shall
be submitted by independent witness. It is also necessary that always case
shall be supported by independent witness. If prosecution witnesses are
reliable then there is no need to corroborate by independent witness.
15. Considering the evidence of P.W. 2 None Lal, which was supported by
the P.W. 6 Munnu Lal and medical evidence, so there is no reason to
disbelieve them, so this Court inspired to believe them.
16. So considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no
reason to intervene with the findings entered by the trial Court for offence
punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC.
17. Leaned counsel for the appellants requested for leniency in the matter
of sentence. He further submitted that appellants were aged near about 26
and 27 years old at the time of the incident. He further submitted that they
are only bread and butter earning members of their family and pray that
accused/appellants may be granted benefit of section 4 of Offenders Act.
18. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants however, makes a limited
prayer that the accused-appellants may be granted benefit under Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
which reads as thus :-
"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:
Provided that the court shall not direct such release
of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender
or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or
regular occupation in the place over which the
court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender
is likely to live during the period for which he
enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1),
the court shall take into consideration the report, if
any, of the probation officer concerned in relation
to the case."
(3)...
(4)...
(5). Power of court to require released offenders to
pay compensation and costs:-
(1) The court directing the release of an offender
under section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make
at the same time a further order directing him to pay
(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable
for loss or injury caused to any person by the
commission of the offence; and
(b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks
reasonable.
(2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section
(1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the
provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code.
(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the
same matter for which the offender is prosecuted,
shall take into account any amount paid or recovered
as compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding
damages."
19. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC,
the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"The Probation of Offenders Act is a
reformative measure and its object is to reclaim
amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of
incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in
society.
In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be
deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn
themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of
crime. But the novice who strays into the path of
crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as
being socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted
in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in
psychological factors induced by hunger, want and
poverty. The Probation of Offenders act recognises
the importance of environmental influence in the
commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy
whereby the offender can be reformed and
rehabilitated in society."
20. In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2022 Raj 945, Court
observed as under :-
"Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
nature of offence is one of the major-criteria for
determining whether benefit of this provision should be
given to the concerned offender or not. His age would be
another relevant factor and the circumstance in which
the offence was committed may be 3rd important
consideration..."
21. In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 198, while
reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of
Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"... The Court has further opined that though the
discretion as been vested in the court to decide when
and how the court should form such opinion, yet the
provision itself provides sufficient indication that
releasing the convicted person on probation of good
conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient..."
22. Resultantly, the present appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the conviction of the present accused/appellants for the offence
under Sections 452, 323/34, 325/34 of IPC as recorded by the learned Court
below in the impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence
part of the said judgment, and directs that the appellants shall be released on
probation, under Section 4 (while considering Section 6) of the Act, upon
their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two
sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this judgment
with a further undertaking that they shall maintain peace and good behaviour
for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence.
23. Under Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, appellants must pay
total amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the injured within 30 days
from the date of this judgment. If they will not deposit compensation amount
within 30 days before the trial Court, they will be liable for three months
sentence. Deposited fine must be adjusted in awarded compensation amount.
All the appellants are equally liable for paying compensation. Trial Court
must take legal action for giving compensation to the injured persons.
24. So this appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are on bail. They need
not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
25. Record of the learned Court below be sent back forthwith.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
VKV/-
VINAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
KUMAR
2.5.4.20=13db8761eb70b132ff40273d
1cd6cbbe7943345d9b89a3be51b2002
de183fc51, postalCode=482001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=24244EEED4BE5112B28
VERMA
64A7944D29B2B81856B49A70689CB1
4D4EBD1688FF149, cn=VINAY KUMAR
VERMA
Date: 2023.12.21 15:13:52 +05'30'
