Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hanumat Singh vs St Of Hry & Ors on 29 July, 2022
CRR No. 2347 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 2347 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION :- July 29, 2022
Hanumat Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present:- Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Advocate for the respondents.
Mr. Brijesh Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sunil Kumar and
Vijay Singh sons of Parbhati Lal , Parbhati Lal son of Bhai Ram, Amar
Singh son of Ramji Lal and Ramautar son of Parbhati Lal, all of them being
accused in F.I.R No. 288 dated 29.10.1994 for offences under Sections
148/323/452/149 IPC registered with Police station Jatusana faced trial by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari on the allegations that on
25.9.1994 at about 8. P.M in the area of Village Tatarpur within jurisdiction
of Police station Jatusana, District Rewari, all of them while being armed
with iron pipes and lathis formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution
of their common object criminally trespassed into the house of complainant
Hanumat Singh and his mother Lado Devi and in that process they had
voluntarily caused simple injuries to complainant Hanumat Singh and his
mother Lado Devi with blunt weapons. The injured were taken to hospital
where they were medically treated and medico legally examined.
1 of 4
The matter was reported to the police. Formal F.I.R was
registered. The accused were arrested in this case. On completion of
investigation, they were forwarded to the Court to face trial.
The motive for the incident was that Parbhati Lal, real brother
of the complainant had gone to the house of the complainant and demanded
his share in the ancestral property and when Lado Devi, mother of the
complainant and the complainant refused to do so, Prabhati Lal got angry
and assaulted complainant. In the meanwhile his co-accused also arrived at
the spot and assaulted complainant and his mother Lado Devi.
On completion of trial, all the accused were convicted for
offences under Sections 148/323/452/149 IPC vide judgment dated
17.8.2004 and in terms of the order of sentence passed on 18.8.2004, all the
accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Sections 323/149 IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 148
IPC and under Sections 452/149 IPC rigorous imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default of fine, the accused
were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under
Sections 323/149/148 IPC and six months under Section 452/149 IPC. The
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The accused convicts feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed against them had approached the
Court of Sessions at Rewari, by way of filing an appeal which was disposed
of by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide judgment dated 3.8.2005 in
terms of which conviction of all the accused convicts was maintained.
However, with regard to the sentence, they were granted the benefit of
2 of 4
probation and were ordered to be released on probation subject to their
furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year with one
surety in the like amount and to keep peace and be of good behaviour and
further to appear in the court to receive sentence as and when required. Out
of total fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed on the accused the same was ordered to
be given to the injured as compensation. The accused appellants were
further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- each as cost of litigation.
Now it was turn of the complainant to feel aggrieved by the
judgment and he has approached this Court by way of filing the present
criminal revision petition submitting that the accused have wrongly been
granted the benefit of probation rather keeping in view the gravity and
seriousness of allegations against them they deserve to be dealt with sternly
and sentence of imprisonment awarded to them by the trial Court should
have been maintained.
Notice of criminal revision petition was given to the State and
accused convicts who have put in appearance through their counsel.
I have learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
respondents and learned State counsel besides going through the record.
I find that there is no merit in the criminal revision petition.
The trend of modern penology is towards reform, rather than retribution.
The accused are treated like patients whose rehabilitation in the society is
sought for. Here the injuries attributed to the accused are simple in nature.
The period of probation has elapsed long back. The injured have been
adequately compensated by way of award of compensation by the First
Appellate Court. The parties are closely related to each other. The incident
had taken place about 28 years back. There is nothing on record to show
3 of 4
that the accused have indulged in any criminal act after being granted the
benefit of probation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, till
date. In the interest of justice, public peace and tranquility it would be better
if the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari granting benefit of
probation to the accused is maintained rather than setting aside that order
and making the accused convicts to undergo the substantive sentence
awarded to them by the trial Magistrate. Therefore, I do not find any reason
to allow the criminal revision petition. The same stands dismissed
accordingly.
(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
July 29, 2022
p.singh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
