Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumran Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3187 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SUMRAN JATAV S/O SHRI MUNSHI JATAV, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
RONAKHEDI POLICE STATION SIRSOD, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HAKIM JATAV S/O MUNSHI JATAV, AGED ABOUT
26 YEARS, RESIDENTOF VILLAGE RONAKHEDI
POLICE STATION SIRSOD, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ANIL JATAV S/O MUNISH JATAV, AGED ABOUT 19
YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RONAKHEDI
POLICE STATION SIRSOD, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SMT. PADAMSHRI AGRAWAL AND SHRI SOORAJ BHAN LODHI,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH TOWN INSPECTOR POLICE
STATION SIRSOD DISTT. SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI NITIN AGRAWAL- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-
STATE)
T h is revision coming on for ......... this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated
25-07-2022 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/21/2023
7:05:36 PM
Appeal No.214 of 2021 affirming the judgment dated 16-11-2021 passed by the
JMFC, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.862 of 2018,convicting petitioners for
offence under Section 323 of IPC and and sentencing them till rising of the
Court with fine of Rs.500/- each in default of fine, ten days simple
imprisonment.
Allegations against the present petitioners are that on 29-11-2018, when
the complainant Bhura (PW1) had gone to the hand pump for pouring water,
the present petitioners abused the complainant in filthy language. Thereafter,
petitioner no.1 Sumran Jatav inflicted a lathi blow on the head of complainant.
On hearing his cry, when cousin Neeraj (PW3) and grand-mother Suti (PW3)
came there for his rescue, petitioner No.2 Hakim Jatav inflicted a lathi blow on
his cousin Neeraj and petitioner No.3 Anil Pushed her due to which she fell
down on the ground and sustained injuries. His brother Uttam jatav (PW4) and
Ramhet Jatav (PW7) had witnessed the incident who saved them. On the basis
of which Crime No. 215 of 2018 was registered for offence under Sections 323,
294, 506, 34 of IPC vide FIR Ex. P1. Injured were medically examined vide
MLC reports Ex. P3 to P5. Statement of complainant and witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 of CrC. After completion of investigation charge
sheet was filed before the competent Court. After conclusion of trial, the trial
Court convicted the present petitioners and sentenced vide judgment dated 16-
11-2021 and the same was affirmed by lower appellate Court vide judgment
dated 25-07-2022.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an FIR was
lodged by petitioners on 29-11-2018 vide Crime No. 214 of 2018 against the
complainant party and thereafter, a counter-blast FIR was lodged by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/21/2023
7:05:36 PM
complainant party on the same day vide Crime No. 215 of 2018 against the
present petitioner. The learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner from all
charges and found guilty only under Section 323 of IPC. The dispute had arisen
over pouring water, not otherwise. The petitioners are the young persons aged
around 25, 26 and 19 years. They are the first offenders. There is no criminal
antecedent against them. Therefore, they be entitled for Probation of Offenders
Act. But, the Courts below has neither given benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C.
to them nor recorded any reasons as specified in Section 361 of Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Keshav Sitaram Sali vs. State of Maharashtra, 1983 AIR (SC)
291 in which Apex Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for giving
benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or Sections 3 & 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act in a case under Section 323 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Section 360(1) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
" œ360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or
after admonition.-
(1) When any person not under twenty- one years of age is
convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with
imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any
person under twenty- one years of age or any woman is-
convicted of an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved
against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he
is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or
antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which
the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender
should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court
may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/21/2023
7:05:36 PM
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 where any first offender is convicted by a
Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the
High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers
conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record
his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a
Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or
taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who
shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub-
section (2).
As per the aforesaid provision, said Section contemplates as to which
offenders are entitled to the benefit of probation and on what conditions. It
contemplates that firstly, if any person not under twenty- one years of age is
convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a
term of seven years or less; and secondly, when any person under twenty- one
years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death
or imprisonment for life, is entitled to the benefit of probation. Both categories
of offenders have to further satisfy that he is not a previous convict; satisfaction
of the Court having regard to the age, character or antecedents of the offender
and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed. The court being
satisfied can order, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, 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) and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
Provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory and if trial Court is of
the opinion that order to release on probation is not advisable, he has to assign
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/21/2023
7:05:36 PM
reasons for non-giving the benefit as per the provisions of Section 361 of
Cr.P.C. Beside this, as per Section 360(4) of Cr.P.C., this benefit can be
awarded by the appellate Court or by the High Court while exercising its
powers of revision.
In the case in hand, petitioners have been sentenced to till rising of the
Court. They are the first offenders and no previous criminal antecedents of the
petitioners have been brought on record.
I n view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the
opinion of this Court, benefit of probation ought to have been extended to the
petitioners which Courts below have not extended. Therefore, this revision is
disposed of in terms of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and it is ordered that petitioners
be released on probation of good character on furnishing personal bond before
the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of the order on the conditions that they will maintain peace in the area and will
not commit any offence during this period. Probation Officer is also directed to
submit quarterly report of the petitioners before the concerning trial Court about
their activities.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/21/2023
7:05:36 PM
