Himachal Pradesh High Court
Krishan Chand And Others vs State Of H.P on 6 September, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. Revision No. 223 of 2012
Decided on: 6th September, 2023
.
Krishan Chand and others .......Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P ...Respondent
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners:
rt Mr. Sanjay
Advocate.
Dutt Vasudeva,
For the respondent: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G.
and Ms. Leena Guleria, Dy. A.G.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
Petitioners have filed the present revision petition, against the judgment, dated 21.09.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No. 18-I/X/2007, titled as 'Krishan Chand and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh'.
2. Vide judgment, dated 21.09.2012, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the convicts'), under 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2023 20:34:27 :::CIS 2Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), against the judgment of conviction .
and order of sentence, dated 12.06.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').
3. By virtue of judgment of conviction and order of of sentence, dated 12.06.2007, the learned trial Court has convicted the convicts, for the commission of offences, rt punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences has been ordered to run concurrently.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2023 20:34:27 :::CIS 34. The instant revision petition has been admitted for hearing by this Court, vide order, dated 16.11.2012.
.
5. Vide order, dated 12.07.2023, this Court has ordered to call for the report of the Probation Officer. In sequel thereto, the report of the Probation Officer has been received.
of
6. Today, statements of all the convicts have been recorded on oath, in which, they have stated that they do not rt want to press the present petition, preferred against the judgment of conviction and prayed that they may be released on probation.
7. The report of the Probation Officer perused.
8. Perusal of the record shows that the convicts are the first offenders and the offences committed by them are not premeditated one.
9. The Probation Officer has specifically mentioned that the conduct of the convicts, during past years, in the society, is good and has recommended that the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act be given to them.
10. The offences, for which, the convicts have been convicted, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The convicts are having the permanent abode in District ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2023 20:34:27 :::CIS 4 Kangra (Himachal Pradesh), as per the report of the Probation Officer. There is nothing on the file to demonstrate that after .
the incident, upon which, the FIR was registered against the convicts, any other incident, had taken place and no subsequent offence has been committed by them.
11. The convicts have already faced the agony of the of trial, including the pendency of the appeal, for the last sixteen years.
12. Our rtCriminal Jurisprudence System is reformatory in nature. With the passage of time, it has been realized that sending the first offender to jail, to undergo substantive sentence, does not produce good results, as, the first offender/convict, sometimes, may come in contact with the hardened criminals.
13. The probation is a kind of non-custodial sentence, by giving an opportunity to the convict to reform himself, while abiding by certain conditions, imposed by the Court, for a certain period. It is a reformatory measure to achieve the object, by giving an opportunity to the convict, to reform himself, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2023 20:34:27 :::CIS 514. While, not pressing their revision petition, against the judgment of conviction, the convicts, have prayed that .
they be released on probation. Rejecting the prayer of the convicts to release them on probation, would amount to punishing their family members, for the offences, committed by the convicts.
of
15. Considering the nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that it would be expedient to release the convicts rt on probation of good conduct, instead of directing them to undergo substantive sentence, as imposed by the learned trial Court.
16. Considering all these facts, the revision petition of the convicts is dismissed against the judgment of conviction, however, in view of the discussions made above, the order of sentence is ordered to be modified. Instead of directing the convicts to undergo the substantive sentence, they are directed to be released on probation of good conduct, on their furnishing personal bond(s) in the sum of ₹30,000/- each, with one surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, to keep peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of two years and to receive the ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2023 20:34:27 :::CIS 6 substantive sentence, as and when, called upon to do so, during the period of two years.
.
17. It is clarified that in case of violation of any of the conditions, so imposed, including the terms and conditions of the requisite bonds, the order of sentence shall revive automatically, without reference to this Court. In that of eventuality, the convicts are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive sentence.
18. rt In view of the above, the revision petition is partly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
September 06, 2023 ( Virender Singh )
(naveen) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2023 20:34:27 :::CIS