Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Singh vs State Of Haryana on 23 January, 2024
CRA-S-2202-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:009147 - 1-
CRA-S-451-SB-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117-2 cases CRA-S-2202-SB-2004
Date of decision: 23.01.2024
Pritam Singh
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CRA-S-451-SB-2005
State of Haryana
.....Appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-2202-SB-2004 and
for the respondent in CRA-S-451-SB-2005.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Both these criminal appeals arising out of a common judgment, are
thus being decided together.
2. Challenge in CRA-S-2202-SB-2004, filed by the accused-appellant is
to the judgment/order dated 19.10.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Karnal, whereby the appellant was convicted and
sentenced as follows:
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRA-S-2202-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:009147 - 2-
CRA-S-451-SB-2005
Offence u/s Imprisonment Fine Default sentence
353 IPC RI for one year Rs.500/- RI for one month
332 IPC RI for two years Rs.500/- RI for one month
333 IPC RI for three years Rs.1000/- RI for two months
506 IPC RI for one year Rs.500/- RI for one month.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The respondent-State has also filed CRA-S-451-SB-2005, for
enhancing the punishment awarded to the accused.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that, Dhanpat Singh-
complainant made a statement to the police that on 06.08.2003 at about 01:30
P.M., when he was in the office of the Saw Mill, accused Pritam Singh inflicted
injuries to him and slapped on the face of Range Officer-Om Parkash Bishnoi on
account of non-releasing his payment. One daily wager worker-Ashok Kumar,
who was present at the spot, locked the complainant in a room to protect him from
the clutches of the accused. An FIR was registered against the accused-appellant.
5. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the accused-appellant. On finding a
prima facie case, charges under Sections 332, 333, 353, 506 IPC were framed
against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
examined as many as 10 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence,
statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He
denied all the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in the
prosecution case while pleading innocence and false implication.
.
7. The trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRA-S-2202-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:009147 - 3-
CRA-S-451-SB-2005
case, and accordingly convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para No.2 above.
8. Aggrieved accused as well as State are before this Court.
9. Learned counsel
and prays for extending the benefit of probation in view of
the fact that he belongs to sole breadwinner of the
family; first time offender; never misused the concession of bail granted to him
and the incident pertains to the year 2003. Reliance is placed on the judgments of
this Court in Jaggu Singh alias Jagbir vs. State of Haryana 2005 (1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 626; Buta Singh vs. State of Punjab 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 605
and Nepal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and another 2015 (27)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 778.
10.
.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Evidently, PW3-complainant Dhanpat Singh has specifically deposed
that he had received the injuries at the hands of the accused, which is fully
corroborated with the medical evidence, proved by PW1 Dr.Iqbal Singh. On going
through the evidence on record, the prosecution case is found to be well
established. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded by the
trial Court. As such, the conviction of the appellants is upheld. However,
considering the fact situation of this case and there being nothing that has been
pointed out which would have persuaded this Court to enhance the sentence for
offence under Section 333 IPC. No merit in the appeal of the State is found.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRA-S-2202-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:009147 - 4-
CRA-S-451-SB-2005
13. As regards the prayer made on behalf of the appellant is concerned, it
would be apposite to make a reference to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958, which reads 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) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court
may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and
of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a
supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under
the supervision of a probation officer named in the order
during such period, not being less than one year, as may be
specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose
such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision
of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3)
shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a
bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRA-S-2202-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:009147 - 5-
CRA-S-451-SB-2005
specified in such order and such additional conditions with
respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other
matter as the court may, having regard to the particular
circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a
repetition of the same offence or a commission of other
offences by the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3)
shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the
order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision
order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the
probation officer concerned."
14. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of Ratan Lal vs.
State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444, whereby Hon'ble the Supreme Court,
regarding the purpose and object of 'The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958' had
observed and held that, "The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern
liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of
the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual
offender than to punish him. Broadly stated the Act distinguishes offenders below
21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having
committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those
who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above
the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after
admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the condition laid down in
the appropriate provision of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21
years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment
unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including
the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to
deal with them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act."
15. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sitaram Paswan and Anr. vs. State
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRA-S-2202-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:009147 - 6-
CRA-S-451-SB-2005
of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3534, observed that benefit of probation can be extended
at the appellate or revisional stage as well, and held that, "For exercising the
power which is discretionary, the Court has to consider circumstances of the case,
the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. While considering the
nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the
offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. The benefit available to
the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is subject to the
limitation embodied in the provisions and the word "may" clearly indicates that
the discretion vests with the Court whether to release the offender in exercise of
the powers under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act having regard
to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender and overall
circumstances of the case. The powers under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act vest with the Court when any person is found guilty of the offence
committed, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This power can be
exercised by the Courts while finding the person guilty and if the Court thinks that
having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence
and the character of the offender, benefit should be extended to the accused, the
power can be exercised by the Court even at the appellate or revisional stage and
also by this Court while hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India."
16. In Buta Singh (supra), the accused was convicted and sentenced
under Section 333/34 IPC, this Court considering that he was a first time offender
and facing the agony of trial for 13 years, ordered to release him on probation.
17. Reverting to the facts of the present case as regards the prayer made
on behalf of the appellant is concerned, this Court considering the mitigating
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRA-S-2202-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:009147 - 7-
CRA-S-451-SB-2005
circumstances and the judgments referred to above, finds that the ends of justice
would be adequately met if the appellant is granted the benefit of probation of
good conduct.
18. As a consequence to the above, present criminal appeal is hereby
disposed of with a direction to grant probation to the appellant for a period of one
year, on the following conditions as enshrined under Section of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958:
(1) He shall execute a bond for good behaviour with two
solvent sureties in a sum of Rs.10,000/- which shall be
executed before the trial Court within a period of one month
from today.
(2) The said bond shall be in force for a period of one year.
(3) He shall be subject to the supervision of the Probation
Officer and subject to the conditions laid down in the Probation
of Offenders Act.
19. It is clarified that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the appellant will forthwith be taken into custody and shall have to
undergo the sentence awarded to them by the trial Court.
20. The appeal i.e. CRA-S-451-SB-2005 filed by the respondent-State is
hereby dismissed.
21. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
23.01.2024
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
authenticity of this order/judgment
