Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonu Alias Surinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041435
2024:PHHC:041435
CRR-2252-2022(O&M) 1
248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2252-2022(O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.03.2024
SONU ALIAS SURINDER KUMAR
........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the
impugned judgment dated 16.07.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Panipat, whereby, the conviction of respondent no. 2 to 5 was upheld in
FIR No.278 dated 08.07.2014 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325,
452 and 506 of IPC at Police Station- Matlauda, Panipat (Haryana) but the
order of sentence awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat to
respondent no. 2 to 5 was modified and the said respondents were released on
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with
Section 360 of Cr.P.C. for a period of 6 months and were also ordered to pay
compensation of Rs.3,000/- each, i.e., Rs.10,000/- to injured Kitabo and
Rs.2,000/- to the present petitioner.
Respondent No. 2 to 5 were sentenced as under:-
Under Section Sentence (concurrently)
148 r/w 149 R.I for 6 months along with a fine of Rs.100/- each
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041435
2024:PHHC:041435
323 r/w 149 R.I for 6 months along with a fine of Rs.100/- each
325 r/w 149 R.I for 1 year along with a fine of Rs.500/- each
452 r/w 149 R.I for 6 months along with a fine of Rs.100/- each
506 r/w 149 R.I for 6 months along with a fine of Rs.100/- each
Default In default of fine, S.I. for 2 months.
2. Allegedly, on 08.07.2014, the petitioner-complainant Sonu gave
an application along with MLR of Kitabo to the concerned police officials
wherein it was stated that on the same day, while he was sitting at home and
his mother was cooking food, his aunt Shakuntala (respondent no.5) was
setting fire to the waste outside their house. When smoke arose out of the fire,
the petitioner tried to stop her aunt from the doing the said act but she started
abusing him. On commotion, respondent no. 2 to 4 along with other accused
came in front of the house of the petitioner and forcibly entered inside while
carrying deadly weapons like Gandasa, wooden log and started beating the
petitioner and his mother and caused grievous injuries to them. When the
people from surroundings gathered, the aforesaid assailants fled away from the
place of occurrence along with their weapons. On the basis of the above said
application, the FIR (supra) was registered. Thereafter, necessary investigation
was carried out. On 21.08.2014, the bed head ticket of injured Kitabo was
taken from the concerned Hospital upon which Section 325 of IPC was added.
Thereafter, the respondent no.2 to 5 were arrested and after completion of
necessary formalities of investigation, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was
presented before the learned trial Court and they were charge-sheeted
accordingly . Ultimately, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the
private respondents as mentioned above.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041435
2024:PHHC:041435
3. Thereafter, the private respondents preferred an appeal before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat where the said Court upheld the
conviction of the private respondents but modified the order of sentence and
ordered the said respondents to be released on probation under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 of Cr.P.C., on their
entering into probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each in
the like amount, without supervision, for six months and to keep and be of
good behaviour in the meantime. The private respondents were further directed
to pay a copensation of Rs.3,000/- each and out of the said compensation,
Rs.10,000/- were to be paid to injured Kitabo and Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner-
complainant Sonu.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Panipat, the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court by way of
the present revision petition on the grounds that the lower Appellate Court has
wrongly shown leniency ignoring the seriousness of the offence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower
Appellate Court did not appreciate the fact that some of the other co-accused
had already been given the benefit of probation by the learned trial Court and
thus, there was no reason for the private respondents to have been released on
probation given the seriousness of the offences committed by them. He further
contends that the lower Appellate Court also did not pay heed to the fact that
grievous injuries were caused by the private respondents including fracture of
left ulna of the body of Kitabo as duly proved by the medical evidence on
record.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041435
2024:PHHC:041435
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book with their able assistance. There is no such evidence on record which
shows that respondent no.2 to 5 are beyond reform and they have already faced
a protracted trial for the last 12 years and they have not been involved in any
other criminal offences. This Court finds that the chance given to the said
respondents to reform and rehabilitate is very much in interest of justice.
7. Pertinently, Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in
the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. Similarly, Sections 360 and
361 of the Cr.P.C also empower the courts to release the offenders on
probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A
two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through Justice Bela
M. Trivedi, has held as under:-
"6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents
against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the
benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that
view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall
be released on probation of good conduct....."
8. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakhvir
Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 speaking through Justice Sanjay
Kishan Kaul, has held as under:-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041435
2024:PHHC:041435
"6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its
amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on proba-
tion of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment.
Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation
of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without
subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is
sought to be subserved."
9. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to uphold the judgment
dated 16.07.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat,
whereby, the conviction of respondent no. 2 to 5 was upheld in FIR No.278
dated 08.07.2014 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452 and 506 of
IPC at Police Station- Matlauda, Panipat (Haryana) but the order of sentence
awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat to respondent no. 2 to
5 was modified and the said respondents were released on probation under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 of
Cr.P.C. for a period of 6 months.
10. Hence, the instant petition stands dismissed. Pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
20.03.2024 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
