Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1991 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. State Of Haryana

2007-11-15

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. The legality of the judgment dated 10.10.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra has been called in question, whereby appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2006 and 18.8.2006, respectively, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, convicting the petitioner (Amarjit Singh) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- as fine under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the `IPC) and releasing two other accused on probation. 2. On 22.2.2000 at about 9.00 p.m., complainant Pushpinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) a resident of village Ajrawar along with her children was present at her house. In the meantime, the petitioner while driving his car No. HR05F-9399 along with four unknown persons came there, raised ruckus and uttered abuses. The complainant expressed his grievance to the villagers, but the same had not been redressed. Thereafter, on 24.2.2000, she lodged his complaint with the police, on the basis of which the present case was registered. Thereafter, in her supplementary statement, she further disclosed that when the house of the petitioner was raided, the petitioner and his brother uttered filthy words to her saying, "kutti, Haramjadi, Vaishya". 3. Consequent upon the registration of the case, it was investigated and ultimately challan was presented under Section 509 IPC against the accused. 4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charged under Section 509 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During evidence, the prosecution examined ASI Jagdish (PW-1), ASI Daya Nand (PW-2), Pushpinder Kaur (PW-3) and Surmukh Singh (PW-4). 6. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.P.C.), the accused pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Balvinder Singh (DW-1). 7. The trial ended in conviction. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely; Amrik Singh and Swaran Singh were released on probation, while such relief was not extended to the petitioner. Hence, this revision. 8. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is a petty case of assault by words. The complainant was not physically touched and as a matter of fact, this case has been registered against the petitioner for depriving him from his public office of Sarpanch. Hence, this revision. 8. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is a petty case of assault by words. The complainant was not physically touched and as a matter of fact, this case has been registered against the petitioner for depriving him from his public office of Sarpanch. He has further submitted that since there are concurrent judgments regarding conviction of the petitioner, therefore, he does not want to bother this court to interfere in the same. His limited argument is that the Appellate Court wrongly declined the request of probation on the ground that the petitioner was a previous convict, whereas, the alleged judgment was neither proved according to law as envisaged under Section 298 Cr.P.C., nor has been given in evidence as per provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, has cited a judgment of this Court delivered in case Jagdish alias Desa v. State of Punjab, 1993(2) RCR(Crl.) 602 (P&H). Finally, he has urged that since the alleged judgment of conviction is still sub-judice in appeal, therefore, the same cannot be treated as final for forming an opinion that the petitioner is a previous convict. 9. Having deliberated over the issue, it may be observed that neither the trial Court, nor the Appellate Court has mentioned the details of the case, in which the petitioner was previously convicted. Nevertheless, the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashit Malik has fairly conceded that the judgment awarded against the petitioner in a case under Section 409 IPC is still under challenge by way of an appeal. In such circumstances, it could safely be concluded that unless a judgment attains finality, the accused cannot be said to be a previous convict and, thus, he cannot be denied gain under beneficial legislation. In any case, it may further be observed that it is a case of simple assault by way of words and, therefore, in the facts of the case, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner deserved the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act. 10. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with the modification that the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing bond in the sum of Rs. 10. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with the modification that the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he will continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bonds, he will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for.