Punjab-Haryana High Court
Taro vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042133
CRR-1842-2016 1 2024:PHHC:042133
231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1842-2016
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
Taro ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: - Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate
for respondents no. 2 to 5
Mr. Vikas Bharadwaj, AAG, Haryana
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment
dated 20.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal
whereby the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2013 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in criminal complaint no. 1860/2013 dated
18.07.2008 filed under Section 323, 452, 506, 34, 120-B of the IPC, was
upheld and order of sentence was modified to grant the concession of probation
to the respondents-accused.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 11.05.2008, the respondents-accused
forcibly entered the house of the petitioner-complainant and threw her
household goods out while threatening to kill her if she steps out of her house.
The petitioner reported the matter to Police Station Gharaunda, she found all
the respondents-accused inside her house, armed with laathis. Randhir dealt a
laathi blow on the head of the petitioner while Naresh gave a laathi blow on
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042133
CRR-1842-2016 2 2024:PHHC:042133
her right arm, Kishni gave a laathi blow on her left leg as Rekha caught hold of
her from the back. The petitioner raised alarm causing her husband namely
Ishwar Singh and her children to come out of the house, who were also dealt
laathi, fist and kick blows. On hearing the commotion, Tara Chand, Santosh
and the neighbours came to the spot, causing the respondents-accused to flee
from the scene.
3. On assessing all the material available on the record, the learned
trial Court convicted the respondents-accused vide judgment dated 06.12.2013
and sentenced them for commission of offences under Sections 323, 452 read
with 34 of the IPC vide order of sentence dated 07.12.2013. Aggrieved by the
same, the respondents-accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower
Appellate Court which wherein the judgment of conviction was upheld but the
order of sentence was modified to extend the concession of probation to the
respondents-accused vide judgment dated 20.02.2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Court
below fell into error by modifying the sentence of the respondents to three
months of probation as the same is based on untenable grounds. The charges
against the respondents-accused stand duly proven by all the prosecution
witnesses and as such, the learned Court below ought not to have granted the
benefit of probation to them. Further, the learned Court below had awarded Rs.
20,000/- as compensation payable to the petitioner and her husband, which is
on the lower side and deserves enhancement in view of the injuries sustained.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused supports the
impugned judgments and submits that the respondents-accused were correctly
granted the benefit of probation for their good conduct on furnishing probation
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042133
CRR-1842-2016 3 2024:PHHC:042133
bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety which serves the ends of
justice.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the respondents-accused
have maintained good conduct and do not have criminal antecedents. The
theory of reformation and rehabilitation aims at separating the criminal from
the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act committed by him.
In a civilised society like ours, it would be truly unfortunate if an offender is
not given the opportunity to realise and fully fathom his mistake and channel
that awareness into making fruitful contributions in society. A Co-ordinate
bench of this Court in Nasri v. State of Haryana 2023(2) Law Herald 2203,
speaking through Justice Arun Monga, made the following observations:
"11.2. Objectives and principles of criminal law as envi-
sioned in the provision ibid, apart from deterrence against
committing crime against society, are inter-alia focused on
the reformation of offenders, which inheres the concept of
probation. Modern criminal justice system often aims to
balance punishment with rehabilitation, emphasizing the po-
tential for positive change in individuals who have commit-
ted crime. The goal of criminal law extends beyond mere
punishment. While punishment serves to deter and hold in-
dividuals accountable for their actions, there is a growing
recognition of the importance of addressing the underlying
factors that contribute to criminal behaviour. This perspec-
tive emphasizes the potentials of offenders to reform and re-
integrate into society as law-abiding citizens. Probation is
one of the mechanisms used to achieve this reformation ob-
jective. In certain cases, certain offenders may be asked to
remain under community supervision rather than being in-
carcerated. During such probation period, the offender can
be put to follow certain conditions, such as regular report-
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042133
CRR-1842-2016 4 2024:PHHC:042133
ing to a probation officer, participating in counselling or
treatment programs and maintaining employment or educa-
tion. The aim is to provide support, guidance and opportuni-
ties for the offender and to address the root causes of their
criminal behaviour and develop positive life skills. Close
monitoring and guidance provided during probation can
help the offender make positive changes in their life and re-
duce the likelihood of re offending."
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds
no perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned Courts below
which warrants interference. Hence, the instant revision petition stands
dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
21.03.2024 JUDGE
manisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
