Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bala @ Rajesh A Nd Others vs State Of Haryana on 25 February, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Criminal Appeal No.1323-SB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.1323-SB of 2003
Date of Decision 25.02.2010
Bala @ Rajesh a nd others
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...... Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 14/16.07.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicting and sentencing them as under:-
Name of accused Under Section/Sentence
Bala @ Rajesh R.I. for a period of 4 years under Section 308 IPC
R.I. for a period of 1 year each under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC Lala @ Om Parkash R.I. for a period of 1 year under Sections 332, and Ashok @ Tulsi 353 and 506 IPC each on each count.
It has been reported by learned State counsel that as per letter No.799-5A dated 24.02.2010, received by him, the appellant Bala @ Rajesh has already expired.
In view of aforesaid, proceedings qua appellant Bala @ Rajesh stand abated.
On examination of the entire evidence as well as the impugned judgment, it transpires that the accused Ashok Kumar @ Tulsi and Lala @ Om Parkash, who were convicted by the trial Court under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC and not under Section 308 IPC, as part attributed to them, is only that though they had arrived at the spot yet they did not cause injuries to the complainant Constable Rajesh Kumar (herein referred as 'the Criminal Appeal No.1323-SB of 2003 2 complainant). Complainant, while appearing in the witness box, has also testified that though these two accused had also come there, yet they had not caused any injury to him. It is also noticed from his statement that accused Lala @ Om Parkash and Ashok Kumar @ Tulsi were empty handed whereas Bala @ Rajesh had brought bottle of "Jira Lemon" and inflicted a bottle blow on the head of the complainant. Thus, it is apparent that the accused Lala @ Om Parkash and Ashok Kumar @ Tulsi never knew about the mind of accused Rajesh @ Bala to cause injuries as he was initially empty handed. However, since they were also present to instigate and threatened Bala @ Rajesh to create obstruction in the duties of Rajesh Kumar, therefore, they appear to have been rightly convicted under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC only and they cannot be said to have shared common intention to cause injuries to the complainant.
Since the accused Ashok Kumar has already undergone the sentence of one year as awarded to him under Section 332 IPC and the sentences awarded qua other offences would run concurrently, therefore, his appeal is dismissed.
Now coming to the quantum of sentence qua accused Lala, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2001. The accused Lala @ Om Parkash has already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings pending in the Courts. The custody certificate, produced by learned State Counsel, reveals that he has already undergone one month and 10 days of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents qua him have been brought on record to enable this Court to form an opinion that he was a habitual offender. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the Criminal Appeal No.1323-SB of 2003 3 quantum of sentence.
Resultantly, the appeal qua Bala @ Rajesh, stands abated, however, qua accused Ashok Kumar and Lala @ Om Parkash is dismissed with the modification in the sentence qua Lala to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, no modification is made in the sentence as awarded to Ashok Kumar.
Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, for compliance.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge 25.02.2010 mamta-II