Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 287 (HP)

ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-09

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. THE accused has filed the present petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 143-I-2004/29-II-2005 titled as State vs. Ashok Kumar, in terms of which he stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 506, 323 IPC, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur in terms of its judgment dated 29th July, 2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2006 titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. In terms of the aforesaid judgments, the accused is to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for having committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 and 506 IPC with fine of Rs.500/- each and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for having committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and pay fine of Rs.500/-. 2. IN short the prosecution case is that on 5.11.2004, accused trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix (PW-1), caught hold of her right arm and tried to molest her. Prosecutrix cried for help. Her relations Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) and Kusum Lata (PW-4) came and rescued her from the clutches of the accused. Matter was reported to the police and F.I.R No. 198/04 dated 5.11.2004 Ext.PW-6/A was registered at Police Station Nadaun under Sections 454, 354, 323 IPC. Investigation was completed by the police and challan presented in the Court for trial. Prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to him, which he did not avail. In terms of the aforesaid judgments, the accused stands convicted and sentenced. The accused is present in the Court today. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the accused submits that his client does not intend to challenge the judgments of conviction in relation to the charged offences. However, it is strongly urged that since the offence took place in the year 2004; the accused who is not only physically handicapped has meager source of income, has maintained good conduct and behaviour in the society. He has reformed himself and there is no possibility of his committing any crime in future. However, it is strongly urged that since the offence took place in the year 2004; the accused who is not only physically handicapped has meager source of income, has maintained good conduct and behaviour in the society. He has reformed himself and there is no possibility of his committing any crime in future. As such, relying upon the decision rendered by this Court in State of H.P. vs. Devinder Kumar and others Latest HLJ 2012 (1) HP 11 it is urged that with respect to similar offence, the Court has granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Probation Act), as such similar treatment be accorded to the present petitioner. 3. RECORD reveals that petitioner has remained behind bars for On 30th July, 2012 this Court called for the more than 13 days report of the Probation Officer under the Probation Act. The report as placed on record reveals that petitioner aged 35 years is physically handicapped by 60%. He has maintained good conduct since the occurrence of the incident. No doubt, the nature of offence is grave but then petitioner has reformed himself. With respect to similar offence, the coordinate Bench of this Court in Devinder Kumar (supra) granted the benefit of the Probation Act. In fact, I find that in the present case petitioner is better placed. He has his two aged parents. He is bachelor and due to his physical disability cannot get married. He is doing petty business for earning his livelihood. He has maintained good conduct and his neighbourer has shown satisfaction about his character and behaviour. This is his first offence. Apparently, he has not violated any law thereafter. Even the Probation Officer has shown satisfaction of his behaviour. 4. HENCE, taking a holistic view of the entire attending circumstances, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if petitioner (Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Rasil Singh, Resident of Tikka Jangal Khor, Tappa Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur) is accorded benefit of Section 4 of the Probation Act. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year with one surety in the like amount with regard to his conduct, maintaining peace and good behaviour to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needful be positively done within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year with one surety in the like amount with regard to his conduct, maintaining peace and good behaviour to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needful be positively done within a period of four weeks. It is clarified that if petitioner fails to maintain good conduct and behaviour for one year, his bond shall stand forfeited and the sentence in question shall become operative which he shall serve. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.