Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 27 (PNJ)

Raja Ram v. State of Punjab

2004-01-09

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. (Oral) - There are five petitioners in this case namely, Raja Ram, Babu Ram, Mohan, Darna alias Dana and Makhan Ram. They were convicted and sentenced by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana vide the impugned judgment dated June 7, 2001 as under :- Raja Ram U/S 148 Indian Penal Code RI for one year U/S 324 Indian Penal Code RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. U/S 323 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. Babu Ram U/S 148 Indian Penal Code RI for one year. U/S 324/149 Indian Penal Code RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for 3 months. U/S 323 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. Mohna U/S 148 Indian Penal Code RI for one year. U/S 324/149 Indian Penal Code RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine of suffer further RI for 3 months. U/S 323/149 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. Danna U/S 148 Indian Penal Code RI for one year. U/S 324/149 Indian Penal Code RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for 3 months. U/S 323/149 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. Makhan Ram U/S 148 Indian Penal Code RI for one year. U/S 324/149 Indian Penal Code RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for 3 months. U/S 323 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. 2. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, they preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide the impugned judgment dated September 23, 2003. Hence this revision. 4. On October 9, 2003, at the time of admission of the present appeal, notice of motion on the point of quantum of sentence was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab. 5. Admittedly, the present petition is now on the point of quantum of sentence only as on merits it stands dismissed. 6. Hence this revision. 4. On October 9, 2003, at the time of admission of the present appeal, notice of motion on the point of quantum of sentence was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab. 5. Admittedly, the present petition is now on the point of quantum of sentence only as on merits it stands dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present occurrence, both the sides had received injuries i.e. Raja Ram petitioner No. 1 had received as many as 8 injuries and his mother Bhago, who has not been arrayed as an accused, received four injuries, whereas from the complainant side five persons had received injuries. Mr. Sharma then contends that both the parties are residents of the same village and are living peacefully even after they were initially released on bail after registration of the case; that the occurrence took place on 14.4.1994 and by now about ten years have elapsed but no untoward incident has happened during the interregnum; that the petitioners are in custody after their appeal was dismissed. Relying heavily on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays for releasing the petitioners on probation. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sharma relies upon the latest judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Om Parkash and others v. State of Haryana, 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 799. 7. Refuting the submissions made by Mr. Sharma, the learned State Counsel submits that the petitioners do not deserve any leniency on the quantum of sentence as both the Courts below after proper appreciation of the entire evidence have found them guilty of the charge and their conviction is well merited. 8. The admitted position in the present case is that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been looked into by both the Courts below. In my view, the said provisions are attracted in the present case. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Om Parkashs case (supra) while dealing with the provisions of Sections 360/361 Criminal Procedure Code have observed as under :- "The provisions of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code are beneficial to the accused only when the accused is a first offendener in case the accused is more than 21 years of age. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Om Parkashs case (supra) while dealing with the provisions of Sections 360/361 Criminal Procedure Code have observed as under :- "The provisions of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code are beneficial to the accused only when the accused is a first offendener in case the accused is more than 21 years of age. Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that if the Court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 360, then it must record its reasons as to why the benefit of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code is being denied. In view of the peremptory nature of the language of provisions of Section 361, the Magistrate as well as the Court in appeal and revision having not indicated as to why the provisions of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code have not been applied, there has been a gross miscarriage of justice and the legislative mandate engrafted in the aforesaid two sections of the Code have not been complied with." 9. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially that both the sides have received injuries in this case, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve the concession of being released on probation. It is ordered accordingly. I direct that all the petitioners shall execute a bond with one surety each to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be on probation for good behaviour and keeping peace. They shall prove to be of good conduct and maintain peace during the period of probation. It is, however, made clear that the bond to be furnished by the petitioners shall be of without supervision. 10. The bonds shall be executed before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 11. The fine imposed by the trial Court on different counts comes to a total of Rs. 2500/- each. Mr. Sharma submits that the amount of fine already stands deposited before the trial Court itself. The same would now be converted into the costs of proceedings under Section 5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act. I further direct the petitioners to deposit Rs. 2,000/- each (i.e. Rs. 10,000/- in all) as compensation under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act. Mr. Sharma submits that the amount of fine already stands deposited before the trial Court itself. The same would now be converted into the costs of proceedings under Section 5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act. I further direct the petitioners to deposit Rs. 2,000/- each (i.e. Rs. 10,000/- in all) as compensation under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act. The said amount shall be deposited before the trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and the same would in turn be given to the injured persons in equal shares. 12. With the modification in sentence as indicated above, the present revision petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.