Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 987 (PNJ)

Prem Dass v. State of Punjab

2004-08-31

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Accused Prem Dass has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.12.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which he was convicted under Section 308 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. As per the prosecution version, the injured Om Parkash, who is the complainant, was posted as octroi Inspector in Cantonment Board, Jalandhar Cantt. The accused Prem Dass was also working as Octroi Clerk in the said office. On 16.12.1992, the accused came to the complainant Om Parkash for obtaining leave. On that, Om Parkash told him that for the purpose of leave, he should approach the Stenographer. But the accused insisted that Om Parkash should accompany him to the Stenographer. When the complainant told the accused that he was working and he should himself go to the Stenographer, the accused abused him. He was having a dang in his hand and he gave a dang blow to Om Parkash which hit him on the left side of his head. The accused gave 2-3 more dang blows to Om Parkash which hit on his hand, back and shoulders. The said occurrence was witnessed by Vijay Kumar, Peon and Kamal Kishore, Clerk. The injured was removed to the hospital where he was medically examined vide MLR (Ex. P-8) and remained hospitalised for some time. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid version, the prosecution was launched against the appellant for an offence under Sections 332, 353 and 308 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the challan was filed and charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 333 and 308 Indian Penal Code. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1-Dr. Ashok Nanda, PW-2 Om Parkash, PW-3 Kamal Kishore, PW-4 Pankaj Sareen and PW-5 ASI Balbir Singh. 4. In his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused pleaded innocence and did not lead any evidence. 5. After taking into consideration the prosecution evidence and the medical evidence, including the statements of witnesses, the appellant was convicted under Section 308 Indian Penal Code only and sentenced as above. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. After taking into consideration the prosecution evidence and the medical evidence, including the statements of witnesses, the appellant was convicted under Section 308 Indian Penal Code only and sentenced as above. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Though the counsel for the appellant, while referring to the statements of various witnesses examined by the prosecution, tried to canvass before this Court that the appellant was innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case, but he could not successfully make out a case of false conviction. There is no infirmity or illegality in the conclusion drawn by the trial Court while convicting the appellant under Section 308 Indian Penal Code, after taking into consideration the evidence available on the record and the statements of various witnesses. 7. Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant did not raise much argument on the conviction of the appellant. However, he submitted that this case is a fit case where the benefit of probation should be given to the appellant. In this regard, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is at the fag end of his service career and is going to retire within one year. He further submits that the appellant is facing the agony of the protracted trial for the last 12 years. Besides, the appellant has a large family, including six children. There are four daughters which are of marriageable age. He further submits that in this case a compromise was effected between the parties during the course of trial, a copy of which has been produced on the record as Ex. DA. The complainant while appearing as PW-2 has admitted in his statement that the matter was compromised between him and the accused with the intervention of their colleagues. He acknowledged his signatures on the compromise (Ex. DA). However, a suggestion put to him as to whether he had received Rs. 5,000/- in the said compromise, was denied. In view of these facts, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be given the benefit of probation. 8. He acknowledged his signatures on the compromise (Ex. DA). However, a suggestion put to him as to whether he had received Rs. 5,000/- in the said compromise, was denied. In view of these facts, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be given the benefit of probation. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if instead of sentencing the appellant to substantive imprisonment, he should be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate for a period of one year from the day he furnishes bonds before the trial Court. During the period of probation, the appellant would be of good behaviour and keep peace. Ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court on the appellant is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and the said amount shall be converted into compensation under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act. The said amount shall be deposited by the appellant before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing bonds and the same would in turn be given to the injured Om Parkash (complainant) without any delay. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.