Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 760 (PNJ)

Maya Bai v. State Of Punjab

2005-07-20

SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 24th July, 1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, whereby each of the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default whereof to undergo further RI for one month under Section 326 IPC; RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default whereof to undergo further RI for 15 days, under Section 325/34 IPC and RI for six months under Section 323/34 IPC. However, Maya Bai and Samri were convicted and sentenced under Section 326 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC, though the sentence was the same. The judgment dated 8th October, 1991 whereby the petitioners appeal against the aforementioned order of conviction and sentence was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, is also under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The prosecution machinery was brought into motion on 26th December, 1986 with a complaint that at about 11 AM Krishan Lal along with Naranjan Singh was going to village Arniwala and when they reached near the Dhani of Joginder Singh, the petitioners herein, armed with Kasia, Dang etc. way laid them and upon a Lalkara by Maya Bai, Mangal Singh-the petitioner allegedly caused a Kapa blow on the front side of head of Krishan Lal while Datar Singh petitioner gave a Kasia blow on the left side of this head and Samri- petitioner inflicted a Dang blow on his left shoulder. Maya Bai the petitioner allegedly gave brickbats hitting Krishan Lal on his left arm and left leg. Upon raising of alarm by Krishan Lal, Naranjan Singh and Surjit Singh rescued him from the clutches of the petitioners, who are stated to have fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Krishan Lal injured was medico- legally examined; FIR was registered and the petitioners were prosecuted which ultimately culminated into their conviction and sentence, referred to above. Their appeal having been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that they are before this Court. 3. It may be mentioned here that while admitting this revision petition on 28th October, 1991, this Court admitted Maya Bai and Samri to bail. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Their appeal having been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that they are before this Court. 3. It may be mentioned here that while admitting this revision petition on 28th October, 1991, this Court admitted Maya Bai and Samri to bail. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. No. 13128 of 1991 was moved by the remaining two petitioners, namely, Mangal Singh and Datar Singh and they too were directed to be released on bail vide order dated 19th November, 1991. It is not disputed that in the interregnum, the petitioners were taken into custody for short durations firstly in the year 1987 and thereafter in the year 1991, in terms whereof they have spent 2 months and 11 days in custody. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that since there are concurrent findings of fact in relation to the petitioners guilt and consequential conviction and the same being based upon appreciation of oral evidence on record, he will not be able to persuade this Court to tinker with those findings of fact on account of limited scope of interference by a revisional Court. He, however, strenuously contends that having regard to the facts that (i) the occurrence took place in the year 1986 and the petitioners have been subjected to protracted trial for almost three years; (ii) the sword of pending appeal and/or revision has remained close to their neck for over a period of 16 years; (iii) in this long spell of over 16 years, there is not a single instance of involvement of the petitioners in any criminal activity; and (iv) they have led a peaceful life in the village and do not have strained relations with the complainant party, it will be too iniquitous to send them behind bars at this stage, therefore, it is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Nihalsinghwala, learned DAG, Punjab, argues that having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which the petitioners attacked the injured in a pre-meditated manner, it is not a fit case to release the petitioners on probation. She, however, is not in position to counter the mitigating circumstances, highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioners, a brief reference to which has been made in the preceding paragraph. 6. She, however, is not in position to counter the mitigating circumstances, highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioners, a brief reference to which has been made in the preceding paragraph. 6. Having hard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that so far as the findings of fact returned by the learned Courts below in relation to guilt and consequential conviction of the petitioners is concerned, no interference is called for. There is nothing on record to suggest that either the findings are perverse or are based upon no evidence. Hence, no interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdictional of this Court is called for. 7. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that two out of four petitioners are women and the occurrence had taken place on account of a trivial issue and having regard to the fact that the petitioners do not have any track record of indulging into criminal activities, I find it a fit case to invoke the powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed, judgments dated 24th July, 1989 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka and dated 8th October, 1991, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, to the extent of sentence, are modified and it is directed that the petitioners need not undergo the remainder of sentence and they be released on probation for a period of one year on their entering into bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each of the life amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate, Fazilka undertaking therein that they shall keep peace and be of good conduct and shall also appear before the Probation Officer, Fazilka/Ferozepur during the said period, to receive sentence, as and when called.