Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 389 (PNJ)

Ved Parkash v. State of Punjab

2003-03-06

AMAR DUTT

body2003
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - The petitioners along with one Joginder Singh were alleged to have voluntarily caused hurt to Balbir Singh and Baldev Singh Forest Guards on 18.2.1988, while they were discharging their duties as public servants. A case under Sections 332, 353 and 186 Indian Penal Code was got registered by Satpal Singh, Forest Range Officer, Dhar at Police Station Dhar Kalan. According to the prosecution, Balbir Singh, Baldev Singh and Harinder Singh, were working as Forest Guards at Check Post Majha. On 17.2.1988 at about 10 p.m. truck No. P.B.N. 9879 came there from the side of Pathankot. It was stopped for checking. The driver had informed the Guards that they were going to their home. On 18.2.1988 at about 6.30 a.m. the same truck was stopped coming from the opposite side and when the driver tried to by pass the check post, the officials became suspicious and stopped the same. The truck was found to be loaded with wood so as to violate the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Timber Transit Rules. Roshan Lal, Ved Parkash and Joginder Singh (since dead) armed with Kirpans and lathis came down from the truck and attacked Forest Guards and thereafter tried to take the truck forcibly from the Check Post. Roshan Lal and Ved Parkash gave blows with dangs to Baldev Singh and Balbir Singh and thereafter forcibly drove the truck from the check post. This incident was reported to S/Shri Gurmeet Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Gurdaspur, Kuldip Kumar, Deputy Divisional Forest, Pathankot and Surain Singh, Range Officer, Pathankot Range. The injured were taken to Primary Health Centre, Phungal Bhadami where they were examined medico legally and a case was got registered against the accused on 19.2.1988 under Sections 332, 353 and 186 Indian Penal Code On completion of the investigation, during the course whereof, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested, challan was put in Court against the three accused persons. 2. Charge under Section 332 Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused and they denied the allegations of the prosecution. Since the accused denied their complicity, the prosecution evidence was recorded and after completion thereof, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. 2. Charge under Section 332 Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused and they denied the allegations of the prosecution. Since the accused denied their complicity, the prosecution evidence was recorded and after completion thereof, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. Defence counsel had asserted that Roshan Lal accused on 18.2.1988 accompanied by his wife and some other family members was coming from a nearby village and when was about to pass the check post, Baldev Singh etc., who were posted there made indecent remarks against his wife and aunt. On this, Roshan Lal tried to stop the witnesses from doing this, whereupon they framed a case against them. During the period of trial, Joginder Singh had died. 3. After hearing arguments, Ved Parkash and Roshan Lal petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. 4. Dis-satisfied with this conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, the petitioners had filed on appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on 9.1.1991. He had upheld the conviction returned by the trial Court and after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case had also rejected the objection that the same was on the higher side. He like the trial Court had also rejected the prayer made by the petitioners counsel to the effect that his clients should be released on probation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. Before me, during revision, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in relation to the conviction are not being challenged. The sole argument, which is being pressed into service is that the petitioners since their conviction have not committed any other offence, in view of which fact they would be entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after a lapse of about 14 years, it would hardly be advisable to the petitioners to undergo their sentence, when during the period that had elapsed since their conviction, they have behaved implacably and have not misused the concession of bail, which has been extended to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after a lapse of about 14 years, it would hardly be advisable to the petitioners to undergo their sentence, when during the period that had elapsed since their conviction, they have behaved implacably and have not misused the concession of bail, which has been extended to them. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and feel that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, sending the petitioners back to the prison may not be in the interest of any one. No crime is alleged to have been committed by the petitioners since the date of incident. In view of their behaviour, the prayer that while disposing of the revision and upholding the conviction, this Court should release the accused petitioners on probation has got to be weighed carefully. The circumstances alluded to by the counsel for the petitioners do to my mind highlight the circumstances which cannot in the peculiar facts of the case be easily ignored. 7. In this view of the matter, without creating a precedent for future, I feel that the appellant be released on probation for two years on his entering into a bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur with surety to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Ordered accordingly. 8. With the above order and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.