Delhi District Court
Shukhpreet Singh vs State on 1 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 128/2/15
IN THE MATTER OF :
Shukhpreet Singh
S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh,
R/o DA-52-F, DDA Flats,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
............ APPELLANT
versus
1 State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
2 Krishan Dhillo
S/o Lt. Sh. Raj Kumar Dhillo,
R/o A-9/4, DDU Complex,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
........RESPONDENTS
DATE OF FILING : 29.10.2015
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 01.08.2016
DATE OF ORDER : 01.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1 This is a criminal appeal filed by appellant Shukhpreet Singh (complainant before trial court) against the impugned order on sentence dt. 30.09.2015 passed by the Ld. MM thereby releasing the respondent no. 2 (accused before trial court) on probation for one year after convicting him u/s 325 IPC.
CA No. 128/2/15 Shukhpreet Singh vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 1/7 2 The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that FIR No. 223/09 u/s 325 IPC P.S Hari Nagar was registered against the accused (respondent no. 2) on the complaint of complainant Shukhpreet Singh (appellant herein) with allegation that on 10.07.2009, he was beaten by accused Kishan Dhillo. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed, charge for the offence u/s 325 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 03.08.2015, who denied the allegations and claimed false implication. He opted to lead evidence in his defense but did not examine any witness in his defense and therefore, DE was closed on 24.08.2015.
4 Ultimately vide judgment dt. 16.09.2015 accused was convicted u/s 325 IPC and was sentenced as above vide order on sentence dt. 30.09.2015.
5 By way of present appeal, it is contended on behalf of the appellant/complainant that the impugned order on sentence is liable to be setaside as the same is contrary to facts and law. Further that the benefit of probation of Offenders act has been given to the respondent no. 2 without appreciating and analyzing CA No. 128/2/15 Shukhpreet Singh vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 2/7 the pleas and contentions put by the prosecution. Further that the benefit of Probation should not have been given to the respondent no. 2 as he has been convicted of an offence punishable for seven years and fine. Further that order on sentence has been passed without giving an opportunity to the appellant who has suffered grievous injuries and he is still suffering pains. Certain other contention are also made and it is prayed that impugned order be setaside and the respondent no. 2 be sentenced in terms of section 325 IPC and adequate compensation may be awarded to the appellant. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Courts in Sanjay Dutt vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 2013 SC 2687, State of M.P vs. Saleem, (2005), 5 SCC 554 and Ajhar Ali vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31 in support of his contentions.
6 On the other hand, respondent no. 2 has controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and it is submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference. One reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in which certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the appeal have been taken and the ground of appeal have been controverted on merits. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Virender Bidhuri vs. The State, Crl. Appeal No. 701 of 2014 in support of his contentions.
7 I have careful perused the record in the light of CA No. 128/2/15 Shukhpreet Singh vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 3/7 submissions made before me.
8 So far as the issue regarding the maintainability of the present appeal is concerned, it is argued on behalf of respondent no. 2 that in terms of proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C an appeal could be filed only in three circumstances. Firstly, when there was an acquittal of the accused, secondly, when the conviction was for a lesser offence and thirdly when inadequate compensation was awarded. Further that none of the above said elements existed in the present case, therefore, no appeal was maintainable. It is also submitted that an appeal can be filed in terms of section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the aggrieved person but the present appeal is not under the said provision. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of appellant that the objections taken by the respondent no. 2 are technical in nature and the appeal is very much maintainable.
9 On careful consideration qua maintainability of the appeal, it is found that appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C can be filed by the victim in several situations including the one where inadequate compensation has been awarded. In my opinion, the words,'inadequate compensation' mentioned in proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C also cover the situation of 'no compensation' and a case where no compensation has been awarded, cannot be kept out of the scope of this provision. Further the appeal u/s 11 of the P.O.A is also maintainable before the same court where the appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C can be filed, so, the objection in this regard CA No. 128/2/15 Shukhpreet Singh vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 4/7 is technical one which can be ignored for the sake of substantive justice. The present appeal can very well be considered u/s 11 of the P.O Act. So, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the present appeal is not maintainable.
10 So far as merits of the appeal are concerned, the appellant has challenged the very decision of the trial court for granting benefit of Probation to the respondent no. 2. After careful perusal of entire record, no illegality is found in the impugned order on this aspect. Respondent no. 2 is not a previous convict. As per report of Probation Officer there is nothing adverse against him. He is of young age having family to support. The offence committed by him is not punishable for more than seven years. The ld. Trial court has observed that the probation and bail are the trust of society which it reposes in the convict so that he is given another opportunity to rejoin the main stream rather than being ostracized or discriminated/excluded. The reasons given by the ld. Trial court while granting the benefit of Probation to the respondent no. 2 are found just and proper. The case is duly covered within the ambit of section 4 of the Probation Act and no illegality is found in the record in respect of granting probation to the respondent no. 2. So, there does not arise any question of setting aside the impugned order on sentence on this ground and sentencing the respondent no. 2 in terms of section 325 IPC.
11 So far as the prayer for awarding adequate CA No. 128/2/15 Shukhpreet Singh vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 5/7 compensation to the appellant is concerned, the same is found to be forceful. Section 357 of the Cr.P.C and section 5 of the Probation Offender Act provided for directing the offenders to pay compensation to the victims. In the impugned order on sentence dt. 30.09.2015, the ld. Trial court has not dealt with this issue at all and the benefit of probation has been given in a more simplicitor way to the respondent no. 2.
12 The provisions regarding compensation have been incorporated with a view to rehabilitate the victim and to strike the balance between the rights of the parties to a criminal litigation. In the present case the appellant/victim Sukhpreet has suffered grievous injury and act of the respondent has been duly proved during trial. The respondent no. 2 has never been to jail in this case and no liability has been imposed upon him by the trial court to compensate the victim as well. As per latest amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code and latest pronouncements of the superior courts, a duty has been cast upon the courts to take care of the need for rehabilitation of the victims by awarding suitable compensation. By virtue of section 357A Cr.P.C, compensation is now being awarded even in cases of acquittal and discharge, so that victims can be rehabilitated. In my opinion the ld. Trial court has been more generous while granting the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the respondent no. 2 without passing any order qua compensation. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, with a view to maintain a balance and rehabilitate the CA No. 128/2/15 Shukhpreet Singh vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 6/7 complainant, there is requirement for imposing additional condition on the respondent no. 2 regarding compensation. Keeping in view the over all facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent no. 2 to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant in addition to the other conditions imposed by ld. Trial court.
13 Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of and the order on sentence dt. 30.09.2015 is modified to the extent that the respondent no. 2 shall be having additional obligations to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant within 15 days from today which shall be deposited with the trial court and the trial court in turn will release the same in favour of the appellant/complainant. Other terms and conditions will remain same.
14 Trial court record be sent back alongwith attested copy of this order for compliance. One copy of this order be given to respondent no. 2 free of cost.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL) TODAY i.e.On 01 August 2016 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI st 01.08.2016 CA No. 128/2/15 Shukhpreet Singh vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 7/7