Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 206 (PNJ)

Zora Singh v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-11

GURDEV SINGH

body2010
Judgment GURDEV SINGH, J. 1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.8.2008 passed by Sh. R. K. Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which he partly accepted the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 28.9.2006 passed by Sh. Parveen Kumar, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, fatehabad, vide which the petitioners and other accused were convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 342 IPC and were sentenced as under:- (i)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Sec.323 ipc (ii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each under Sec.325 IPC (iii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each under Section 342 IPC in the appeal, the petitioners were acquitted of the offences under Sections 325 and 342 IPC whereas their conviction and sentence under Sec.323 IPC was upheld. 2. Babu Ram-complainant was an agriculturist and was resident of ahalisadar. On 3.6.1997, he along with his father Punu Ram was working in the fields, when at about 7/7-30 p. m. , Zora accompanied by Gurnam and Puran came on a scooter. At that time, Zora was armed with a pistol, Gurnam was armed with sword and Puran was armed with a gandasi. On seeing those accused, the complainant tried to run away on his bi-cycle upon which he was challenged by zora and he threatened to shot him dead. Thereafter, Zora brought his scooter in front of the bi-cycle of the complainant. The complainant was caught hold by the accused and injuries were inflicted upon him. He was made to sit on the scooter and was taken towards Lohar Khera. After crossing a liquor vend in punjab, Satnam, Mangat Ram and his brother came on a tractor. He was blind folded and his hand were tied behind. He was further taken on a scooter to a distance of 5/6 Kms inside Punjab. Thereafter, injuries were again inflicted by all those accused persons with the help of sticks and gandasi on different parts of his body. He was kept in illegal confinement for 3/3 1/2 hours, then he was taken on a tractor by Zora, Gurnam Singh and Mangat Ram and his brother and was left in the fields. Thereafter, injuries were again inflicted by all those accused persons with the help of sticks and gandasi on different parts of his body. He was kept in illegal confinement for 3/3 1/2 hours, then he was taken on a tractor by Zora, Gurnam Singh and Mangat Ram and his brother and was left in the fields. He was medically examined by the doctor and 10 injuries were found on his person. The FIR was recorded and the offence under Sec.325 IPC was added after some injuries on his person were declared grievous. In the course of investigation, all the accused were arrested. After the police report was submitted in the trial court, they charged for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 342 read with section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined Buta Ram, PW-1, Dr. A. L. Bajaj, PW-2, dalbir,pw-3 and ASI Bhagwan Dass, PW-4. After the statement of the accused were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , they were called upon to enter upon their defence, but they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 3. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing the learned defence counsel for the accused and Assistant Public prosecutor for the State, learned trial court convicted all the accused, vide the aforesaid judgment. Appeals were preferred against that conviction, and sentence which were decided vide the aforesaid common judgment. Learned appellate Court acquitted Mangat Ram and Thandu Ram, accused of all the offences, whereas the present petitioners-accused were acquitted of the offences under Sections 325 and 342 IPC and their conviction and sentence under section 323 IPC was maintained. Notice of the revision was given to the State. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel and and have carefully perused the file. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners only challenged the sentence recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He argued that the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sec.323 IPC, which is punishable only with imprisonment up to one year and the petitioners are not previous convicts. Keeping view the nature of the offence, they should have been released on probation in stead of sentencing them at once to any punishment. He argued that the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sec.323 IPC, which is punishable only with imprisonment up to one year and the petitioners are not previous convicts. Keeping view the nature of the offence, they should have been released on probation in stead of sentencing them at once to any punishment. These arguments were opposed by learned State counsel on the ground that once the petitioners were found to be guilty under Sections 323 ipc, the learned trial court rightly sentenced them after declining their request for probation. 4. It has not been disputed that the petitioners could have been dealt with under Sec.360 Cr. P. C. as they were convicted of the offence which was punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. According to Sec.361 of the Code, the trial court and the appellate court were required to record the reasons for not giving the benefit of probation. No such reasons were recorded. It was stated by the petitioners before the trial court that they were first offenders and were the only persons to look after their families. That contention was not repelled by the State. It was a fit case for grant of benefit of probation to the petitioners keeping in view that they were not previous convicts and were the only earning members of their families and the offence for which they were convicted was of minor nature. I think it expedient to release the petitioners on probation in stead of sentencing them at once to any punishment. Accordingly, this revision is accepted and the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is set aside. They are ordered to be released on probation on their executing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one surety in the like amount in each case for a period of one year, to the satisfaction of trial court, for appearing and receiving the sentence as and when called upon to do so before that court and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meanwhile. The bonds be furnished before the trial court within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.