Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwari Malviya vs Sushila Dhruve on 26 July, 2012
Cr.R. No.2178 /11
26.7.2012
Shri Satyam Agarwal, Adv. for applicants/petitioners.
Shri P.R. Bhave Sr. Adv. with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav,
Adv. for respondent no.1.
Shri Sameer Chile,Govt. Adv. for respondent No.2 /State.
Heard finally.
Petitioners Rameshwari Malvidya and Surendra Malviya have been convicted u/s 451 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to Regorous Imprisonment for 3 months, one year with fine of Rs.500/--500/- each by J.M.F.C. Sehore in criminal case no.574/05 vide judgment dated 9.2.2011 for causing simple hurt to complainant Sushila Dhurve respondent no.1. In appeal, bearing cri. appeal no.59/11 by First Additional Sessions Judge Sehore vide judgment dated 28.11.2011 partly allowed the appeal modifying the sentence till rising the Court (TRC) and fine of Rs.2000/- each; against which this petition has been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence.
2. I have heard both the sides and perused the judgments available in the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that case of prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, still the petitioners have been convicted.
4. On the contrary, argument advanced by learned counsel for the State and from perusal of the evidence of complainant Sushila Dhurve (PW 1) as there is specific allegation about causing voluntary hurt, which is corroborated by evidence of Dr. S.S. Timar (PW 3) both the courts after marshalling the evidence came to conclusion of concurrent findings.
5. Alternatively learned counsel for respondent submits that petitioner No.1 is government servant and her conviction is upheld then her service career shall be spoiled. Petitioner no.2 is son of petitioner no.1 and is a young boy if his conviction is upheld his academic career shall be spoiled in his initial stage of life.
6. Reliance is placed on Sukhnandan vs. State of M.P.(C.G.) 2002(2) M.P.H.T. 34 , Satyanarayan v. State of M.P. 2003 (I) M.P.H.T. 39 , Munna @ Shyamsunder v/ State of M.P. 2004(2) M.P.H.T. 524 and Rajbir v. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1278 wherein it has been held that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act (for short 'the Act')to the accused a Government servant may be released u/s 4 of the Act, this release shall not affect to accused's service.
7. The petitioner No.1 is a lady, she is a Government servant if she is released on probation u/s 4 of the Act for maintaining peace and good behavior /conduct shall not affect her service.
8. Having thus considered the provisions of Section 4 as well as Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, in the opinion of this court, it would be just and proper that the petitioner No.1 who is in Government service and her service record is found to be good, the sentence of fine even imposed on both the petitioners with TRC is here by set aside by given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case petitioners are directed to be released on probation keeping in view the provisions of Section 4 of the Act on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2000/-each to maintain peace and tranquility during the period of six months to the satisfaction of trial Court. The order of conviction and sentence of TRC with fine is here by set aside of the petitioners.
10. In view of the aforesaid petitioners be released and this release shall not affect service career of Govt. Servant.
Petition is allowed.
C.C as per rules. (M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/