Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1367 (PNJ)

Krishan Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2006-03-29

KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2006
Judgment Kiran Anand Lall and j. JJ. 1. This order may be read as a part of the judgment passed by this court on 18.1.2006. 2. Challenging the judgment dated 16.2.1994 and the order dated 18.2.1994 vide which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted krishan kumar accused-appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, under Sec.325 IPC, the appellant came up in appeal to this court, by filing Criminal Appeal No.109/sb of 1994. The state felt aggrieved against the quantum of sentence and it also filed Criminal appeal no.596/sb of 1994, for the enhancement thereof. 3. This court upheld the verdict of conviction vide judgment dated 18.1.2006 and passed the following order on the point of sentence:- "as regards sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no intention to kill and it was a sudden quarrel, only on account of claim of the appellant to Rs.50/-, which he had given to the deceased injured and he had no knowledge that this will result in death of the deceased. This submission has been accepted by the trial court and for this reason, the offence has been converted into Section 325 IPC. It is submitted that the appellant was 18 years of age at the time of occurrence as, noticed in the impugned judgment and there is no reason to deny the benefit of probation under Sec.4 of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as the appellant is not a previous convict. I have heard learned counsel for the State also. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, to consider the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, a report from Probation Officer, Karnal, be called for. List again on 29.3.2006, after the receipt of report from Probation Officer, Karnal. " 4. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General has, today, placed on record the report (described as written statement) of the District Probation officer, karnal, wherein he has, inter-alia, reported that Krishan appellant is married, has two brothers, bears good moral character, and his antecedents are also good. It is further in the report that no other case has been found registered against him in police Station, Assandh. 5. It is further in the report that no other case has been found registered against him in police Station, Assandh. 5. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General has not opposed the release of the appellant on probation, in view of the facts that he (appellant) is a first offender, was only 18 years of age at the time of occurrence, and also as during the course of grappling with him, due to his refusal to hand-over his (of appellant) wages to the tune of Rs.50/- to him, he had only thrown the deceased on the road. 6. Even otherwise, on merits also, the evidence on record shows that there was no intention on the part of Krishan Kumar appellant to kill the deceased. It was a case of sudden quarrel, and during the course of that, both of them grappled and the appellant threw the deceased on the road. As such, it is a fit case in which the appellant, who is a first offender and was 18 years of age at the time of occurrence, should be released on probation, particularly, when the district probation Officer has given a good report about his character, behaviour, and antecedents. Accordingly, the verdict of sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside and it is ordered that Krishan Kumar appellant shall stand released on probation for a period of two years on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to come and receive sentence when called upon during such period, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He shall also remain under the supervision of the District Probation Officer, Karnal, during the period of probation. 7. Criminal Appeal No.109/sb of 1994 is, accordingly, disposed of in these terms. In the above view of the matter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate general has not pressed Criminal Appeal No.596/sb of 1994, and rightly so, as the facts and circumstances of the case do not call for any enhancement of the sentence. The appeal filed by the State shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.