Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1943 (RAJ)

Ram Kumar v. Het Ram

2005-07-28

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Pnawar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 110.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh (for short, “The appellate Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2002, whereby the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 against the Judgment and order dated 011.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for Short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 238/86 and while maintaining the conviction of the non-petitioner No. 1 for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 325, 341/34, IPC and that of non-petitioner No. 2 under Sections 452, 341, 323/34, 325/34, IPC, set-aside the order of sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Court vide order dated 011.2001, directed to release the petitioners on probation under Section 4 of the Act as also awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/-each from the non-petitioners to injured-petitioner Raj Kumar under Section 5 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the Judgment s and orders of the Appellate Court as well as of the trial Court and carefully gone through the record. 3. On the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court, the trial Court convicted non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 as noticed above and sentenced both the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-for the offence under Section 452, IPC and 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341, IPC. Non-petitioner No. 1 Het Ram was sentenced to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-for the offence under Section 325, IPC and three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323, IPC. Similarly, non-petitioner No. 2 Jagdish was sentenced to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-for the offence under Section 325/34, IPC and three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/34, IPC. The appellate Court, instead of sentencing the non-petitioners for punishment of imprisonment, directed to release them on probation. 4. In the instant case, petitioner Ram Kumar PW. 2, is the injured person. 100/-for the offence under Section 325/34, IPC and three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/34, IPC. The appellate Court, instead of sentencing the non-petitioners for punishment of imprisonment, directed to release them on probation. 4. In the instant case, petitioner Ram Kumar PW. 2, is the injured person. He has clearly stated that he was assaulted by non-petitioners No. 1 and 2. Non-petitioner No. 1 inflicted injuries with a lathi on his leg, which resulted in fracture of leg. The petitioner suffered as many as 12 injuries on various parts of his body at the hands of non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 vide Exhibit P/4, out of which 4 injuries were on scalp. The injuries suffered by the petitioner on his left leg resulted in the fracture of lower 1/3 shaft of both tibia and fibula and fracture of head of second metacarpal bone vide Exhibit P/12. The injuries suffered by the petitioner have been proved by PW. 5 Dr. Narendra Godara, who has proved the injury report Exhibit P/4. PW. 9 Dr. Pradeep Parekh, Radiologist, has proved the X-ray plates Exhibit P/12 and Exhibit P/13 as also the X-ray report Exhibit P/10. According to these witnesses, the petitioner suffered fractures of tibia and fibula bones of left leg and also suffered a fracture of metacarpal bond vide Exhibit P/12. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the prosecution and keeping in view the nature of the injuries caused to the petitioner, convicted and sentenced the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2, as noticed-above. However, the Appellate Court maintained the conviction but set-aside the sentence of imprisonment and released the non-petitioners on probation. Though the Appellate Court awarded compensation to the petitioner-injured from the non-petitioners under Section 5 of the Act but the same appears to be a meagre amount. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trail Court against the non-petitioners is just and proper and commensurate with the injuries caused to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that the non-petitioners are not previous convicts and, therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in setting-aside the sentence of imprisonment and releasing the non-petitioners on probation. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that the non-petitioners are not previous convicts and, therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in setting-aside the sentence of imprisonment and releasing the non-petitioners on probation. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. Though the petitioner suffered as many as 12 injuries, out of which four were on skull, i.e., parietal and occipital reasons. Apart from these 4 injuries on skull, the petitioner also suffered fractures of tibia and fibula bones of left leg as also the fracture of metacarpal bone. For these injuries, he has suffered physical pain and mental agony for considerably a long period. Both the Court below concurrently found that the non-petitioners caused the aforesaid injuries to the petitioner and, therefore, committed the offences for which they have been convicted and the conviction has not been challenged by the non-petitioners. 8. The questions remain for consideration are as to whether the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is to be restored, or the order releasing the non-petitioners on probation, passed by the appellate Court, is to be maintained; as also whether the compensation awarded by the appellate Court is adequate in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. In Hari Kishan & State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127 , the Honble Supreme Court held that Section 357 (2), CrPC is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing Judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the act of the accused. It may be noted that this power of the Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. The Honble Supreme Court recommended to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. The Apex Court further held that the payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. 10. In Rachhpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 2710 , the Honble Supreme Court held that in cases where the Court does not award a fine alongwith a substantive sentence, Section 357 (3) of the Code comes into play and it is open to the Court to award compensation to the victim or his family. The Apex Court further held that it is in the exercise of this power under Section 357 (3) that the High Court has awarded the compensation in question, therefore, it was well within the jurisdiction of the High Court. 11. In Delhi Domestic Working Womens Forum vs. Union of India & Ors., 1995 SCC (Criminal) 7, the Honble Supreme Court has stressed the need for victim oriented attitude and favoured the shift in penological thinking, reflecting the growing importance attached to restitution and reparation over the more narrowly retributive aims of conventional punishment. The victim oriented penological principles can be given effect by ordering the payment of compensation to the victim. 12. Keeping in view the number and nature of injuries caused to the petitioner at the hands of the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2, in my view, the accused/non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 must be directed to pay adequate compensation so as to balance the act of the accused/non-petitioners and the injuries suffered by the injured-petitioner at their hands. The non-petitioner No. 1 is said to be an Advocate. The non-petitioner No. 1 is said to be an Advocate. It cannot be said that the non-petitioners were not aware of the consequences of their act, yet they inflicted injuries to the petitioner and caused as many as 4 injuries on skull and 8 other injuries, out of which two resulted in fractures of leg and hand bones. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 11,000/-each would be a reasonable and adequate compensation to the victim, i.e., the petitioner. However, it would not be in the interest of justice at this stage to restore the order of the trial Court sentencing the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 to the imprisonment after lapse of such a long period. 13. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order of the Appellate Court is modified to the extent that the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 11,000/-each, instead of Rs. 1,000/-each, as compensation to the petitioner. The non-petitioners No.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.11, 000/-each within the period of two months from this order. The amount of compensation, if any, deposited by the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 in compliance of the order of the appellate Court shall be adjusted towards the enhanced amount of compensation.