Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abdul Rasheed vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
CRR-2457-2022 -1-
2024:PHHC:050703
244 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2457-2022
Decided on:10.04.2024
Abdul Rasheed .... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate
as amicus curiae for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)
Instant revision petition has been preferred to challenge the
order dated 04.05.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Sangrur whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
25.04.2019 passed by learned JMIC, Malerkotla was partially allowed and
the conviction of respondents under Sections 324, 323, 506, 201, 341 and
34 IPC was modified by ordering their release on probation.
2. Learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2019
convicted the accused-respondents under Sections 324, 323, 506, 201,
341 and 34 IPC and sentenced as under:
Sr. Name of convicts Under Section Sentence
No.
1 Mohd. Ishfaq 341/34 IPC To undergo SI for one month
324 IPC To undergo RI for three years
323/34 IPC To undergo SI for six months
2024:PHHC:050703
506/34 IPC To undergo SI for six months
201/34 IPC To undergo SI for one month
2 Mohd. Ramzan 341/34 IPC To undergo SI for one month
324 IPC To undergo RI for three years
323/34 IPC To undergo SI for six months
506/34 IPC To undergo SI for six months
201/34 IPC To undergo SI for one month
3 Modh. Shafiq 341/34 IPC To undergo SI for one month
324 IPC To undergo RI for three years
323/34 IPC To undergo SI for six months
506/34 IPC To undergo SI for six months
201/34 IPC To undergo SI for one month
4 Mohd. Shahid 341/34 IPC To undergo SI for one month
324 IPC To undergo RI for three years
323/34 IPC To undergo SI for six months
506/34 IPC To undergo SI for six months
201/34 IPC To undergo SI for one month
All the sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.
3. As per the case of prosecution, on 10.01.2017 when the
injured complainant Abdul Rasheed was present and working outside his
shop, his neighbours i.e. accused-respondents namely Mohd. Ishfaq and
Mohd. Ramzan entered into a quarrel with Harpreet Kaur. On hearing
their noise, when he came out of his shop to help Harpreet Kaur, the
accused-respondents without any provocation assaulted him as well as
his niece, as a result of which, both the complainant-injured and his niece
received many injuries on their person. Since all the prosecution
witnesses including the injured-complainant and his niece while stepping
into the witness box supported the case of the prosecution the trial Court
vide order dated 25.04.2019 convicted the respondents-accused as
already detailed hereinabove. The Lower Appellate Court vide judgment
dated 04.05.2022 partially allowed the appeal and extended the
2024:PHHC:050703
concession of probation to the accused-respondents in view of the nature
of the injuries and the factum of the accused and the complainant being
immediate neighbours. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
Lower Appellate Court had gravely erred in extending the concession of
probation to the respondents and had misread the evidence on record. It
has been argued that despite there being cogent evidence qua the role
and participation of the respondents-accused, the Appellate Court fell into
error in ordering the release of accused on probation. Furthermore, no
compensation was also ordered to be awarded to the petitioner, who had
admittedly received injuries at the hands of respondents-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents while controverting the
submissions made by the counsel opposite has submitted that the
impugned order did not warrant any interference and learned Appellate
Court had ordered the release of the respondents-accused on probation
after taking into account that they were first time offenders and the parties
were immediate neighbours. Therefore, a prayer has been made for
dismissal of the instant revision petition.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material
available on record.
7. After considering the submissions made by the parties as well
as on the perusal of the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to allow
the instant petition especially considering the familial responsibilities and
good conduct of the respondents-accused during and after the conclusion
of the trial. It is further worth noting that the occurrence in question took
2024:PHHC:050703
place in the year 2017 and the respondents-accused has thus, endured
prolonged legal proceedings ever since then; it has not been disputed by
the State counsel as well, that ever since then, the respondents-accused
have maintained good conduct and have not been involved in any other
untoward incident or criminal case. Admittedly, the injuries sustained by
the petitioner and his niece were opined to be simple in nature as per the
report of PW-6 Dr. Inderjit Singh.
8. In a modern society, the ultimate aim of punishment is
reformation, and incarceration is not always necessary, if the offender has
shown remorse and exhibited responsible behaviour thereafter.
9. As a sequel to the above, no ground is made out to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
10.04.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
