Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 37 (HP)

Dhian Singh v. State of H. P.

2009-01-08

V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT (V.K. Ahuja, J.) (Oral) - This is a criminal revision filed by the petitioners under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 7.9.2002, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, dated 23.6.2000, vide which the petitioners were held guilty under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under :- Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. On realization of the fine, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was payable as compensation to the LRs of the deceased. 2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.11.1986, at 6.00 p.m., a rapat was lodged with the police by one Rattan Singh that on 30.11.1986, at about 11.00 a.m., in the house of Dhiana, a bundle of bamboos was kept in the courtyard in front of the door by the labourers. His mother Smt. Purvo Devi asked his son Surjit Singh as to who has kept the bamboos in front of the door to which his son told her that these bamboos belonged to Dhian Singh. Thereafter, his mother addressed Dhian Singh, Joginder Singh, Promila and their mother Vidya Devi, who were standing in their courtyard, as to why they have not kept the bamboos in their own courtyard and why these have been kept in their courtyard since it is a bad omen. The exchange of words took place between both the parties and the other party started giving filthy abuses and the complaint came out and told Dhianu etc. as to why they were giving abuses since his mother had rightly said that it was a bad omen to keep bamboos in the courtyard, but they refused to remove them. His mother again asked them to remove the bamboos and not to give abuses and at this instance they all came towards his mother to give her beatings. It was further alleged that Promila took a plastic shoe from her right foot and gave several blows on the face, head etc. His mother again asked them to remove the bamboos and not to give abuses and at this instance they all came towards his mother to give her beatings. It was further alleged that Promila took a plastic shoe from her right foot and gave several blows on the face, head etc. of his mother and threw her on the ground by pushing her. His brothers’ wives Premi Devi, Savitri and Hukmi Devi came forward to rescue his mother and all those persons ran away. It was further alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by Lachhi Ram and Nikku Ram, who were working as masons in their house. His brothers’ wives massaged his mother at the spot on the foot and hand and proclaimed that old lady had been killed and doctor should be brought. The complainant went to a private doctor Desh Raj who came and after examining his mother, he opined that she is already dead. 3.On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 302/34 IPC. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge who framed the charge under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sent the case to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, for trial. A charge was framed under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC against all the petitioners. A revision was preferred before this Court against the said order and this Court vide its judgment dated 12.5.1988, upheld the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the said judgment, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial of the case and on conclusion, the petitioners were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced, which findings were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal, as detailed above. 4.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Thereafter, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial of the case and on conclusion, the petitioners were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced, which findings were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal, as detailed above. 4.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5.The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners were that on appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the eye-witnesses had not attributed any specific role to any of the petitioners except Promila Devi and as per the evidence, they were standing at some distance and there was no actual participation by them in regard to the beatings given with Chappal by Promila Devi. It was also submitted that since there was no prior meeting of minds between the accused persons, who, allegedly, gave beatings, namely, Promila Devi and other petitioners, and no specific role was attributed to other petitioners in the FIR or in the subsequent statements made by the eye-witnesses and as such it was submitted that the guilt of the other petitioners has not been established beyond any reasonable doubt. It was also submitted that there is defence evidence on record to show that the deceased had fallen down and suffered injuries and as such these injuries cannot be attributed to Promila Devi. 6.On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein supplementing it by the submission that there is no glaring defect in the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court and since there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the petitioners, there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioners, which deserves to be dismissed accordingly. 7.A perusal of the record of the case shows that to substantiate their case, the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses. I shall firstly make a reference to the statements of the complainant and other eye-witnesses and shall refer to the infirmities or contradictions, if any, in their testimony, as was argued during the course of arguments. I have already mentioned above that the rapat was lodged with the police by PW-1 Rattan Chand, who, as per the allegations made in the FIR Ext.PW-1/A, was present at the spot at the time of occurrence. I have already mentioned above that the rapat was lodged with the police by PW-1 Rattan Chand, who, as per the allegations made in the FIR Ext.PW-1/A, was present at the spot at the time of occurrence. In his report lodged with the police Ext.PW-1/A, as mentioned above, he had referred to the act of his mother in asking firstly his son and then the petitioners as to why the bamboos have been kept in their courtyard and the filthy abuses given by the petitioners. In regard to the specific part played by each of the petitioners, he has stated that all the four persons came towards his mother to give her beatings and Promila Devi took a plastic shoe from her right foot and gave blows on the face and head of his mother and pushed her and when the wives of his two brothers came forward, they ran away from the spot. It has to be seen as to whether the accused can get any benefit of any improvements made by this witness in his statement, when he appeared in the court and only in case he had been confronted with the improvements made by him in his statement as PW-1, the defence can taken any benefit and not otherwise. 8.The said Rattan Singh has been examined in the court as PW-1 who has stated that the accused persons had kept the bamboos in front of their door and when his mother asked them, they started giving beatings to her. He stated that Promila Devi gave blows with boot, Vidya had caught hold of his mother from head, Dhian Singh had caught hold of her from arms and the blow with boot was given on the nose of his mother. The masons were working at the spot and when they came there, apart from Premi Devi, Savitri Devi, Hukmi Devi and Surjit Singh, the accused persons ran away. He stated that in the report lodged by him, he had mentioned that Vidya Devi had caught hold of his mother from her hair and was pulling their hair. He was confronted with FIR Ext.PW-1/A, wherein it was not so recorded. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his report that Dhian Singh had caught hold of his mother from her arm. He was confronted with FIR Ext.PW-1/A, wherein it was not so recorded. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his report that Dhian Singh had caught hold of his mother from her arm. He also admitted that it was not mentioned that the blows with boot were given to his mother on her nose. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in the report that he lodged a report with Namberdar and Chowkidar, who came to the spot. He was further confronted with his report Ext.PW-1/A and stated that he mentioned in the report that all the accused persons gave beatings to his mother. He was confronted with Ext.PW-1/A wherein the name of accused Promila had been mentioned only. 9.PW-2 is Surjit Singh, the complainant’s son and an eye witness, whose name was mentioned in Ext.PW-1/A. He stated that he was standing in the verandah of his house and his grand mother was being given beatings by Dhian Singh etc. He stated that Promila Devi removed her plastic boot and gave the blows on he head of his grand mother. He stated that Dhian Singh had caught hold of his grand mother from her head and Vidya Devi also caught hold of her from her head, while Joginder Singh had caught hold of her from face. He stated that his grand mother suffered injuries on her head and he saw the injuries on her head only. He further stated that his Tai (uncle’s wife) Premi Devi and Hukmi Devi came and masons Nikku and Lachhu also came to rescue and the accused persons ran away. He has given his age as 15 years and he has stated that the deceased was his grand mother, which clearly shows that he was an interested witness. Since the occurrence had taken place on 30.11.1986 and his statement was recorded after more than 2-1/2 years and as such he was of the age of about 12-1/2 years at the time of occurrence. 10.In cross-examination, he admitted that his grand mother was of the age of 70-80 years, was an old lady and had week eye sight. He stated that she had not fallen on the ground but had fallen when she was pushed. He was confronted with his statement Ext.DA where it was not so recorded that the accused had pushed his grand mother. He stated that she had not fallen on the ground but had fallen when she was pushed. He was confronted with his statement Ext.DA where it was not so recorded that the accused had pushed his grand mother. 11.PW-3 Smt. Savitri Devi, who is the brother’s wife of the complainant and whose name finds mention in the FIR, also admitted to have rescued the deceased. She also stated that the bamboos had been kept and his mother-in-law asked Dhian Singh and his family members as to why they had kept the bamboos and asked them to remove it, but they started giving abuses to her. She stated about the presence of the petitioners at the time of occurrence. She further stated that Promila Devi took her plastic shoe and gave blows on the head and nose of the deceased and gave 5-7 blows. She further stated that her mother-in-law was pushed who fell down and they rushed to rescue her. She admitted in her cross-examination about the disputes in between their family and that of the petitioners. She clearly stated that at that time, Joginder, Vidya and Dhian Singh, the three accused persons, did not give any beatings and that it was given by Promila only. She stated that the accused persons gave abuses. She stated that Nikku and Lachhi were working there at that time. 12.Apart from the above, the prosecution had examined Prithi Ram as PW-6, who stated that he had worked in the house of Dhian Singh for preparation of the bamboo baskets. He was declared as hostile and he did not state that any occurrence took place in his presence. 13.PW-7 Lachhaman Dass has stated that he was working in the house of Rattan Singh as mason alongwith Nikku Ram. He stated that the bamboos had been kept in the courtyard and both the parties were giving abuses to each other and Rattan Singh proclaimed that his mother has been killed, who was lying on the ground that the ladies were massaging her. He stated that Dhian Singh’s family was standing near the door and Promila was also standing there alongwith a plastic shoe in her hand and her brother Dhian Singh had caught hold of her from her waist. He stated that he had not seen any beatings being given at that time. He was also declared as hostile. He stated that Dhian Singh’s family was standing near the door and Promila was also standing there alongwith a plastic shoe in her hand and her brother Dhian Singh had caught hold of her from her waist. He stated that he had not seen any beatings being given at that time. He was also declared as hostile. 14.The other mason Nikku Ram, who was working with PW-7 Lachhaman Dass, has been examined as PW-8, who has stated about the presence of PW-7 Lachhman Dass at that time. He stated that the bamboos had been kept on the side (vih) of the house of Dhian Singh and not in the courtyard and Rattan Singh’s mother asked him not to keep bamboos there for which arguments took place. He stated that it is considered a bad omen to keep the bamboos in front of the door and some quarrel took place in between Dhian Singh’s family and Rattan Singh’s mother and the quarrel stopped and they continued working. He stated that after 1/2 hour, Rattan Singh proclaimed that his mother has been killed and he saw the spot where Rattan Singh’s mother was lying unconscious and her daughters-in-law were massaging her. He further stated that Promila was having a boot in her hand and was standing at the door of her house. He was also declared as hostile since he has not supported the prosecution story fully. 15.Apart from the above, the prosecution had also examined Dr. S.P.S.J Thakur, who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Smt. Purvo Devi. He stated that she died due to the injuries suffered by her which were observed as under : “...............this person has died due to rupture of temporal vessel left side and basilary artery with rupture of cerebral hemisphere leading to cardio respiratory arrest due to injuries mentioned already. The time between injury and death Immediate...........”. This witness further stated that these injuries mentioned in Ext.PW-13/A, which is a postmortem report, can be caused with Ext.P-1, plastic boot, if the blow is caused with great force. He stated that the injuries mentioned in Ext.PW-13/A were grievous in nature. 16.The prosecution had also examined some formal witnesses to the recovery of Chappal and the statement of Investigating Officer etc., which have been discussed by the courts below also. He stated that the injuries mentioned in Ext.PW-13/A were grievous in nature. 16.The prosecution had also examined some formal witnesses to the recovery of Chappal and the statement of Investigating Officer etc., which have been discussed by the courts below also. 17.From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that in the FIR lodged with the police, the complainant had mentioned his own presence as well as that of his son Surjit Singh, from whom his mother had asked about the keeping of bamboos and he has also stated about the presence of his brothers’ wives, namely, Premi Devi, Savitri Devi and Hukmi Devi, who were present there and had tried to rescue his mother at that time. Thus, this occurrence was witnessed by the complainant, his son Surjit Singh and three of his brothers’ wives, who were present there. Apart from these, he has also stated about the presence of Lachhi Ram and Nikku Ram, who were working there and had seen the occurrence. Out of these 7 persons, the details of the occurrence have been stated by the complainant as PW-1. In so far as the part played by Promila Devi is concerned in giving beatings on the person of Purvo Devi with plastic boot, there is over-whelming evidence has been discussed above and here is no doubt in regard to the part played by Promila Devi, who gave blows with plastic shoe on the person of Smt. Purvo Devi, which proved fatal leading to her death and these injuries on her person have been corroborated by the Medical Officer, who clearly gave the opinion that these can result with the beatings given by plastic shoe Ext.P-1, which proved fatal. In so far as the part played by Promila Devi is concerned, that fact stands established that she caused fatal injuries on the person of the deceased. 18.In regard to the part played by the other petitioners, except Promila Devi, the complainant had not specifically alleged or attributed any specific part to the other petitioners that they had caught hold of the deceased from arms, head or hair at that time. 18.In regard to the part played by the other petitioners, except Promila Devi, the complainant had not specifically alleged or attributed any specific part to the other petitioners that they had caught hold of the deceased from arms, head or hair at that time. The complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and attributed specific parts played by the petitioners, as detailed above, that they had caught hold of his mother from arms, hair or from head and he was confronted with the report Ext.PW-1/A, lodged by him with the police, in which there was no specific mention of the part played by other petitioners at the time when the beatings were given by Promila Devi. Once the witness had been confronted with the report lodged by him and he had made improvements when he appeared in the Court, the defence can taken the benefit of improvements since the witness had been given an opportunity to explain in regard to the facts not alleged in the First Information Report. 19.PW-2 Surjit Singh, the son of the complainant, has also attributed specific roles to other petitioners, as have been mentioned above, while he appeared in the witness box, and he was also confronted with his police statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein it was not so recorded. However, he had been specified that other three petitioners, named by him, had not given any beatings to his grand mother, though they had caught hold of his grand mother at that time. PW-3 Savitri Devi and daughter-in-law of the deceased had specifically stated that all the three petitioners had not given any beatings to Smt. Purvo Devi and she did not state that when the blows were given with plastic boot by Promila Devi, the other petitioners had caught hold of her mother-in-law at that time. PW-5 Desh Raj, PW-6 Prithi Ram, PW-7 Lachhaman Dass and PW-8 Nikku Ram, as mentioned above, have not supported the prosecution story. 20.The accused had also examined two witnesses in their defence. DW-1 Lekh Ram has stated that he was present in his house, which was at a distance of 25 metres from the house of Rattan Singh. PW-5 Desh Raj, PW-6 Prithi Ram, PW-7 Lachhaman Dass and PW-8 Nikku Ram, as mentioned above, have not supported the prosecution story. 20.The accused had also examined two witnesses in their defence. DW-1 Lekh Ram has stated that he was present in his house, which was at a distance of 25 metres from the house of Rattan Singh. He further stated that Purvo Devi was giving abuses as to why the bamboos have been kept in front of her door and when she tried to pick up the bamboos, she fell down and no beatings were given by the accused persons. He admitted that there are 5-6 house in between his house and that of the accused persons, which clearly leads to the inference that the possibility that he had witnessed the occurrence appears to be remote. 21.DW-2 Rakesh Singh was also present in his house and has stated similarly. He stated that he cannot produce any revenue record in regard to his old house, which he was cleaning on that day. He admitted that his new house was at a distance of 100/150 yards and in between there was a nallah. 22.There is nothing in the cross-examination of the main eye-witnesses or it was suggested to them that these two defence witnesses had also seen the occurrence at that time or that Smt. Purvo Devi fell down when she tried to pick up the bamboos. No specific suggestions are there to the main eye-witnesses, except in regard to the fall, but the statements of these defence witnesses cannot be said to be such that they can be relied upon so as to hold that the versions of these two defence witnesses are correct. Their statements do not show that they made any efforts to approach the police that they had also witnessed the occurrence and their statements should be recorded or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated. To my mind, this defence version was put up just to give some support to the plea of the petitioners, but it is not sufficient to raise a doubt in the mind of the court that it may be correct. The defence plea was, therefore, rightly disbelieved by the courts below. To my mind, this defence version was put up just to give some support to the plea of the petitioners, but it is not sufficient to raise a doubt in the mind of the court that it may be correct. The defence plea was, therefore, rightly disbelieved by the courts below. 23.The net result of the discussion is that the complainant did not attribute any role to others petitioners, except Promila Devi, but attributed the same for the first time in the court, when he appeared in the witness box. PW-2 Surjit Singh, son of the complainant, attributed specific role to other petitioners also when he appeared in the witness box and not in his statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., while one of the main witness Savitri Devi, who is related to the complainant party, neither attributed any role in her police statement nor in her statement in the Court to other petitioners. The question arises as to whether it can be held that other petitioners’ role has also been clearly proved or that they are also liable for the injuries inflicted by Promila Devi on the person of the deceased. In case the complainant had omitted to attribute the role of other petitioners in the FIR, but had stated so in his supplementary statement, it could have been accepted as correct since it is not necessary that all the complete particulars of the occurrence should be narrated in the FIR and once it had been put on record during investigation as to the role of other persons, the omission made would not have proved fatal. Moreover, even in the case of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, they had not attributed any specific role to other petitioners and they attributed the role to other petitioners when they appeared in the court after number of years and as such there was major improvement in their testimonies and they were confronted with their previous statements and these omissions rather can be said to be fatal and their statements cannot be relied upon in regard to the role played by other petitioners. The two of the main eye-witnesses, namely, Premi Devi and Hukmi Devi, who had also witnessed the occurrence and had massaged the deceased at that time, were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. The two of the main eye-witnesses, namely, Premi Devi and Hukmi Devi, who had also witnessed the occurrence and had massaged the deceased at that time, were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. 24.The above conclusion leads to the question as to whether the statements of the prosecution witnesses can be relied upon that the other petitioners are also liable for the injuries caused by Promila Devi on the person of the deceased and as to whether there was prior meeting of minds or the common intention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. 25.A reference can be made to a decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this regard in Suresh and another v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1344, in which the Apex Court had made following observations while referring to the provisions of Section 34 of the IPC, which are relevant and are being reproduced below : “To attract Section 34, IPC two postulates are indispensable (1) The criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, nor by one person, but more than one person. (2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such persons. Looking at the first postulate stated above, the accused who is to be fastened with liability on the strength of Section 34, IPC should have done some act which has nexus with the offence. Such act need not be very substantial, it is enough that the act is only for guarding the scene for facilitating the crime. The act need not necessarily be overt. Even if it is only a covert act it is enough, provided such a covert act is proved to have been done by the co-accused in furtherance of the common intention. Even an omission can, in certain circumstances, amount to an act. This is the purport of Section 32, IPC. So that act mentioned in Section 34, IPC need not be an overt act, even an illegal omission to do a certain act in a certain situation can amount to an act, e.g. a co-accused, standing near the victim face to face saw an armed assailant nearing the victim from behind with a weapon to inflict a blow. So that act mentioned in Section 34, IPC need not be an overt act, even an illegal omission to do a certain act in a certain situation can amount to an act, e.g. a co-accused, standing near the victim face to face saw an armed assailant nearing the victim from behind with a weapon to inflict a blow. The co-accused, who could have alerted the victim to move away to escape from the onslaught deliberately refrained from doing so with the idea that the blow should fall on the victim. Such omission can also be termed as an act in a given situation. Hence an act, whether overt or covert, is indispensable to be done by a co-accused to be fastened with the liability under the section. But if no such act is done by a person, even if he has a common intention with the others for the accomplishment of the crime, Section 34, IPC cannot be invoked for convicting that person. In other words, the accused who only keeps the common intention in his mind, but does not do any act at the scene, cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34, IPC.” 26.From the above discussion, it is clear that the facts of the case clearly prove that the petitioners had not come to the spot duly armed in furtherance of their common intention to cause injuries on the person of Smt. Purvo Devi. They were all present at the spot and when Smt. Purvo Devi asked them about the keeping of the bamboos, some exchange of abuses took place in between both the parties at the spur of moment. In that spur of moment, no body may have visualized that some beatings with shoe will be given by Promila Devi, who started giving blows on the person of Smt. Purvo Devi with plastic shoe which she was wearing in her foot. It is not that she had come with any weapon and other petitioners could visualize that this weapon will be used by her in giving blows on the person of Purvo Devi. It is not that she had come with any weapon and other petitioners could visualize that this weapon will be used by her in giving blows on the person of Purvo Devi. Thus, there was no common intention or prior meeting of minds when the petitioners and others were present at the spot and no common intention or meeting of minds can be inferred at the spur of moment, since other petitioners did not facilitate the beatings given by Promila Devi and they had caught hold of the deceased at that time nor encouraged Promila Devi to give shoe beatings. Therefore, whatever act was done by Promila Devi can be attributed only to her and not to other petitioners taking the assistance of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I accordingly hold that the findings of both the courts below holding the petitioner Promila Devi guilty under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law, but the other petitioners are not responsible for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction and sentence imposed upon other petitioners, except Promila Devi, is set aside. 27.In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold only the petitioner Promila Devi guilty under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the remaining petitioners are acquitted of the charge under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 28.Coming to the findings recorded by both the courts below and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner No. 3 Promila Devi, the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment had observed that Promila Devi is a married lady of 34 years and mother of two daughters. It was observed by the learned trial Court that the petitioners had been facing trial for more than 13 years, but a precious life was also cut short because of the beatings given by the accused which proved to be fatal. Keeping in view the age and character of the offenders as well as the nature of the offence, the learned trial Court did not give the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Keeping in view the age and character of the offenders as well as the nature of the offence, the learned trial Court did not give the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 29.Similar observations were made by the learned Sessions Judge by reproducing the observations made by the learned trial Court and it was observed that the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view and no case is made out for grant of benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 30.The learned Counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the decision in Sita Ram Paswam and another v. State of Bihar, 2005(13) Supreme Court Cases 110, a perusal of which shows that power under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act can be exercised at appellate or revisional stage or even while hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. There is no doubt in regard to the powers that it can be exercised by the appellate Court also but it is a discretion given to the court to grant the benefit or not of probation depending upon the facts of the case. 31.The decision in Hansa v. State of Punjab, 1977(3) Supreme Court Cases 575, was also relied upon, which was also a case of conviction under Section 325 of the IPC, in which the release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on the facts, was held to be justified, which decision is not attracted to the present facts since the facts of each case differ. 32.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that due to a rash act on the part of the petitioner Promila Devi, an old woman of the age of 70-80 years had lost her life due to the beatings given to her by the petitioner Promila Devi, she does not deserve any leniency. Both the courts below have rightly held that the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given in the facts and circumstances of the case and I agree with the said observations made by both the courts below. The learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view and had convicted and sentence petitioner Promila Devi to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year only and those findings do not call for any interference by this Court. The learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view and had convicted and sentence petitioner Promila Devi to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year only and those findings do not call for any interference by this Court. The sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed is also maintained. The order granting the amount to the legal heirs of the deceased is set aside. The petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed, as detailed above. The learned trial Court shall take steps so that the petitioner Promila Devi serves the sentence confirmed as against her and intimation in this regard be also sent to this Court as and when the petitioner is arrested and sent to prison. Bail bonds furnished by other petitioners shall stand discharged and the fine deposited by them, except Promila Devi, be also released in their favour. M.R.B. ———————