Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Hy on 30 January, 2024
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103 CRA-S-1797-SB-2004
Date of decision: 30.01.2024
Pardeep Kumar
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Ms. Bisman Mann and Mr. Rishav Soni, Advocates
for the appellant.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated
03.09.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby
the appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:
Offence u/s Imprisonment Fine Default sentence
333 IPC RI for three years Rs.3,000/- RI for six months
332 IPC RI for two years Rs.2,000/- RI for four months
353 IPC RI for one year Rs.1,000/- RI for one month
186 IPC RI for three months
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Succinct facts at first. Mahender Singh-complainant made a statement
to the police that he was a conductor in Haryana Roadways and on 12.10.2003 at
about 10:30 A.M., when his bus reached near Railway crossing of Rampura turn,
Qutubpur, the accused gave beatings to the bus driver and when he was bring to
rescue, the said accused inflicted injuries to him as well. An FIR was registered
authenticity of this order/judgment
- 2-
against the accused-appellant.
3. 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, 186 and 506 IPC were
framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
examined as many as 13 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.
.
5. The trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its
case, and accordingly convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para No.1 above.
6. Aggrieved accused as well as State are before this Court.
7. Learned counsel
and prays for extending the benefit of probation in view of
the fact that he is the sole breadwinner of the family; has a daughter of
marriageable age; first time offender; never misused the concession of bail granted
to him and has suffered the pangs of trial since 2003.
8.
.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record.
10. Evidently, PW6-complainant Mahender has specifically deposed that
he had received the injuries at the hands of the accused, which is fully
authenticity of this order/judgment
- 3-
corroborated with the medical evidence, proved by PW2 Dr.A.K. Ranga. 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 and
conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. As such, the conviction of the appellant is
affirmed.
11. 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
- 4-
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
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."
12. A judgment in Ratan Lal vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444 can
be profitably referred to, 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
- 5-
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."
13. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sitaram Paswan and Anr. vs. State
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."
authenticity of this order/judgment
- 6-
14. In the case of B.S. Narayanan vs. State of A.P. 1987 SCC (Cri)791,
the accused was convicted under Section 353 and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment of six months, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that the
incident pertains to the year 1975, ordered to release him on probation.
15. In Buta Singh vs. State of Punjab 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 605,
the accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 332, 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.
16. In Satish vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court had observed that, "Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right to
lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free roaming criminals creating havoc in
the lives of ordinary peace loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of
reformative theory which propounds that a civilised society cannot be achieved
only through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead public
harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first
time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look
forward to a bright future. [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 112]".
17. Humanistically viewing, the appellants having suffered the ignominy
of trial since long; successfully warded off their crime-proneness-an evident
learning of a lesson; their socio-economic circumstances, this Court finds
extenuation to be implicit. Thus, to strike a balance and serve the interest of
justice, the appellants deserve to be granted an opportunity to assure the
authorities of their reformation. They be released on probation for a period of one
authenticity of this order/judgment
- 7-
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.
18. 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 him by the trial Court.
19. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
30.01.2024
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
authenticity of this order/judgment
