Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 August, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 174 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 02.08. 2016.
______________________________ _____________________________
[
.
Surinder Singh & Ors. .........Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ............Respondent.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondent:rt Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur,
Additional Advocate General with
Shri Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.PC read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, titled "Surinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh", affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.03.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 79-1-2004 of 2004 titled "State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Kumar & 1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 2Ors." whereby accused-petitioners herein, has been sentenced to undergo as under:-
"Simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of .
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for committing offence under Section 451 IPC;
Simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for committing offence under Section 323 IPC; and Simple imprisonment of three months and a fine of of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for committing offence under Section 506 IPC, and in default of payment rt of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days on each count. All sentences shall run concurrently."
2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that on 13.05.2004, around 9:25 p.m. complainant was teaching his children in the varandha, whereas his wife Anita Devi was washing utensils there. In the meantime, accused Surinder Kumar trespassed into varandha and asked the complainant as to whether he was willing to vacate the tenanted premises or not. Complainant told the accused to talk on the said matter in the morning as he (accused) was drunk at that time but accused gave beatings to the complainant and his wife beside hurling abuses on them.
Thereafter, remaining accused persons, who were brothers of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 3 accused Surinder Kumar, reached at the spot and gave beatings to the complainant with fist and leg blows. Accused persons also dragged the complainant's wife from her hair, as a .
result of aforesaid incident, complainant suffered injuries on his person, whereas his wife did not sustain injury on her person.
Complainant and his wife were saved from the clutches of accused persons by S/Shri Tilak Raj and Surjit Kumar alias of Chhota. However, while accused leaving the scene of crime intimated the complainant to do away with their lives.
rt
3. After aforesaid occurrence, complainant alongwith his wife came to police station, Nadaun and lodged F.I.R. Ext.
PW-2/A against the accused persons. The police got the complainant medically examined at C.H.C., Nadaun and obtained M.L.C. Ext. PW-3/A. ASI Nek Ram, Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ext. PW-4/B on the next day of the occurrence. Records further reveals that one Smt. Surjit Kumari, maternal aunt of the accused persons was also named as accused but during investigation her involvement in the commission of crime was not found, as such, she was not challaned.
4. Police after completion of investigation came to the conclusion that accused persons are guilty of having committed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 4 offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and as such presented challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Naduan. Learned Judicial Magistrate .
1st Class taking cognizance of the averments contained in the challan as well as documents annexed therewith charged the accused with the offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not of guilty and claimed trial.
5. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced rt on record by the prosecution and statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. found present petitioners-
accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly, vide order dated 29.3.2008 convicted / sentenced them as per description given here-in-above.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class on 29.3.2008, accused filed appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, District Hamirpur, H.P., which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2008.
However, learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, after perusing the records made available to him dismissed the appeal and upheld ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 5 the judgment of learned trial court. Hence, the present criminal revision petition by the petitioners-accused.
7. Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, appearing for the .
petitioners-accused, vehemently argued that the impugned judgments of both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and, as such, of deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended on behalf of the accused persons that learned Courts below have rt not appreciated the evidence brought on record in its right perspective, rather both the Courts below have fallen in grave error while recording conviction of the accused on the basis of discrepant, contradicting and unreliable evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, as such, judgments of both the Courts being based upon misrepresentation of the facts, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. During the arguments having been made by Mr. Ajay Chandel, he made this Court to travel through the statements/depositions made by the prosecution witnesses during the trial to demonstrate that there are major contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, as such, no reliance could be placed on the same by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 6 the Courts below while recording the conviction of the present petitioners-accused. He specifically invited the attention of this Court to the statements made by PW-2 Parshotam Lal and PW-6 .
Anita Devi to suggest that bare reading of the same makes it clears that there are major contradictions in the statements and, as such, both the Courts below have fallen in grave error while placing reliance on the same in holding petitioners-
of accused guilty of offence committed under Sections 451, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Mr. Chandel, forcefully rt contended that evidence led by prosecution is neither cogent and nor convincing and moreover independent witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the version put-
forth by the prosecution and as such findings of learned Courts below that petitioner in furtherance of common intention trespassed the premises of the complainant with the intention to assault and intimidate him at the relevant date and time and cause simple injury to the complainant and threatened him to do away with their lives are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Mr. Chandel also stated that the Courts below miserably failed to appreciate that complainant PW2 and his wife had implicated one Surjit Kumari allegedly on the allegations that she (Surjit Kumari) dragged the wife of the complainant in the varandha ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 7 and give beatings to her. Similarly, the testimony of PW6 that they went to the residence of S.D.M. by way of forest and the S.D.M. had telephoned the police station and then they went to .
the police station and lodged FIR but aforesaid version doesn't find mention in the First Information Report and, as such, the versions put-forth on behalf of PW2 and PW6 being contradictory should not have relied heavily by the Courts of below. Mr. Ajay Chandel also contended that prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that rt petitioners-accused trespassed the varandha and gave beating to the complainant and his wife and, as such, findings recorded by the Courts below deserves to be set aside. Mr. Chandel also contended that bare perusal of medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, clearly suggests that injuries as alleged by the prosecution were also possible by fall and as such statements of PW2 and PW6 being contradictory on material points, should have been dealt with due care and caution by the Courts below while recording the conviction.
While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chandel also stated that since prosecution failed to connect the petitioners-accused with alleged occurrence, conviction and sentence solely recorded on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 8 the statements of PW2 and PW6, who are interested persons, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the .
petitioners prayed that accused may be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 keeping in view their ages and being first offenders.
Moreover, they are the sole bread earners and have family to of support, if at this stage, the accused are convicted, their families shall have to face the humiliation in the village/society.
rt He also stated that mitigating circumstance in this case is that more than 12 years have passed after having the incident and 8 years after passing of the judgment dated 27.03.2008, whereby the accused were convicted and they have already suffered agony during the pendency of the appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge as well as in High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Chandel, also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Yudhbir Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh 1998(1)S.L.J. 58, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. The only mitigating circumstance that appears to be there is that the time gap of about six years between the date of occurrence as well as the date ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 9 of decision of this revision petitioner. During this entire period sword of present case looming over the head of the petitioner was always there. That being so, this court is of the view that instead of .
sending the petitioner to jail as ordered by the courts below, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial of Court within a period of four weeks from today to keep peace and to be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond before the court below as well as not to commit rt any such offence. In addition to being given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons."
10. On the other hand, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur vehemently argued that bare perusal of judgment passed by both the Courts below clearly suggests that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence led on record by the prosecution ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 10 and as such no interference of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Thakur while referring to the statements of the prosecution witnesses stated .
that bare perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses suggests that accused entered into the house of the complainant and gave beatings to him, which stands duly proved with the medical evidence adduced on record by the of prosecution. Mr. Thakur, vehemently argued that plain reading of statements given by PW2 and PW6, nowhere suggests that rt they have contradicted each other, rather careful reading of the same clearly suggests that prosecution witnesses have been very very candid and straightforward while deposing that accused entered into the varandha and gave beatings to the complainant as well as his wife and as such both the Courts below have rightly held petitioners-accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Mr. Thakur forcibly contended that despite overwhelming evidence available on record to suggests that petitioners-accused trespassed the house of complainant and gave beatings to him and her wife, Courts below awarded minimum punishment and as such this is not a fit case, where ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 11 this Court taking lenient view, review / modify the sentence passed by the Courts below.
11. Mr. Thakur also prayed that the petitioners-accused .
may not be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He stated that no person can be allowed to enter into somebody's house and give beatings. He stated that bare perusal of the complaint lodged of by the complainant as well as material available on record clearly suggest that every effort was being made by the rt petitioners-accused to get tenanted premises vacated by using force and, as such, keeping in view the conduct of the accused, no benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be granted to them.
12. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, reminded this Court of its limited jurisdiction while exercising powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
He stated that this Court enjoys very limited powers under Section 397 Cr. P.C. to re-appreciate the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to prove its case, especially when it stands proved on record, both the Courts below have dealt with each and every aspects of the matter meticulously. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Thakur prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 1213. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record.
14. There is no doubt that this Court has very limited .
powers under Section 397 while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction but in the instant case, where petitioners-accused have been convicted and sentenced, it would be apt and in the interest of justice to critically examine the statements of the of prosecution witnesses with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned Courts below are not perverse rt and same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record.
15. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality or ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 13 sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose .
behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is of preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and rt cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order."
16. Perusal of the material available on record as well as statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses, it clearly emerges that Parshotam Lal, Draughtsman in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, lodged an F.I.R.
Ex.PW2/A, specifically stating therein that he resides at village Bharmoti alongwith his family members in the house of one ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 14 Madan Lal, as tenant. He also stated that on May 13, 2004 at about 9:25 p.m. after taking meal, he was teaching his children in varandha, whereas his wife was cleansing the utensils. He .
also stated that accused Surinder Kumar entered in his house and asked that whether he would vacate the house or not.
Complainant told him that he (Surinder Kumar) is under the influence of liquor and they would talk on this issue in the of morning, however, accused started beating the complainant and his wife and also hurled abuses upon them. Thereafter, rt Rajkumar and Sonu as well as Surjit Kumari also assaulted them. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is the tenant for the last one year on a rental of Rs.100/- per month, however, he could not produce the receipt of the rent in his cross-examination. He also admitted in his cross-examination that there are 10-15 houses adjacent to his house. He also admitted that accused persons are residing in the house of their maternal uncle (Mama), who is landlord of complainant. In his cross-examination he denied that when accused and his maternal uncle demanded rent he went out of control. He also denied that when Surinder Kumar went to store room to bring household items, his wife gave beating to Surinder Kumar. PW2 Parshotam Lal also denied the suggestion put to him that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 15 Surinder Kumar was not drunk at that time. He also denied the suggestion that no incident took place in varandha or in his room. He also denied the suggestion put to him that accused .
never asked him to vacate the house. He also stated that all the villagers had gathered on the spot.
17. PW6 Anita Devi, wife of complainant (PW2) also stated that at the relevant time she was cleansing the utensil of and Surindr Kumar came in their room under the influence of liquor and asked her husband to vacate the house. She stated rt that her husband told him that he (Surinder Kumar) is under the influence of liquor and they would talk in the morning but accused started beating her husband and also abused her husband. She stated that when she tried to rescue her husband, accused Surinder Kumar also gave beatings to her and after that two accused persons and their maternal aunt Surjit Kumari also came and Surjit Kumari dragged her from hair. She also stated that accused persons threated to kill her husband. She also stated that Tilak Raj and Chhotta Ram rescued them. She further stated that thereafter, they went to the residence of S.D.M. and S.D.M. made call to the police station and then they went to the police station to lodge F.I.R. In her cross-
examination, she admitted that she did not tell the police about ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 16 going to the S.D.M. residence through forest area. She also admitted that they are tenants of accused persons for the last two years. She also admitted in her cross-examination that .
houses of Tilak Raj and Chhotta Ram is at a distance of 50 yards. She also admitted that there are 10-15 houses adjacent to the residence of complainant. However, she denied the suggestion that accused persons did not give beatings to them.
of
18. Close scrutiny of prosecution witnesses PW2 and PW6, clearly suggests that there are no material contradiction rt in the statements given by these prosecution witnesses, rather both the prosecution witnesses had been very candid and straighforward while giving the sequence of events happened at the time of alleged occurence. Moreover, cross-examinations conducted on these prosecution witnesses, nowhere suggests that defence was able to extract something contrary to what they stated in their examination-in-chief. Apart from above, no suggestions with regard to motive, if any, to falsely implicate the accused was put to the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and as such contention put-forth on behalf of the petitioners-
accused that both the Courts below have fallen in grave error while placing reliance on the statements of PW2 and PW6, deserves to be ignored outrightly. This Court while ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 17 hearing the case had an occasion to go through the statements of prosecution witnesses, which nowhere suggests that they are inconsistent, contradictory and suffers from discrepancies.
.
19. PW1 Tilak Raj stated that when he went to the spot he found that quarrel was going on the spot and Parshotam Lal and his wife were beating Surinder Kumar. But when this witness was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor he stated of that he heard noise from the room of Parshotam Lal, however, he admitted that quarrel (Mar-Peet) was going in the residence rt of the complainant. He also denied that accused persons were beating the complainant and his wife. But interestingly in his cross-examination by defence counsel, he stated that Surinder Kumar accused was going to the store of his building and when he asked the complainant to pay the rent, which was due for the last one year, he was given beatings. He also admitted that complainant and his wife assaulted the Surinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar was also medically examined by the police. He stated that he separated them alongwith Ramesh and Rajkumar. He also stated in cross-examination that complainant and his wife gave beating to the Surinder Kumar due to which Surinder Kumar suffered injury on his foot and police got the medical examination of accused Surinder Kumar done. He also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 18 stated that person, namely, Ramesh and Raj Kumar also tried to save accused Surinder Kumar from the clutches of the complainant and his wife. He also admitted in his cross-
.
examination that quarrel had taken place at store but inadvertently he stated that quarrel took place in quarter.
20. Careful perusal of the statement of PW-1, clearly suggests that he reached the spot after hearing noise but on of close scrutiny of cross-examination conducted on this witness by the defence counsel clearly suggests that version put-forth rt on behalf of this prosecution witness is not trustworthy, rather there are major contradictions and he does not appear to be confidence inspiring. But one thing clearly emerge from his statement that accused Surinder Kumar and other had entered into the house of the complainant, which clearly corroborate the statements given by the PW2 and PW6, wherein they categorically stated that accused entered into their house and asked that when he will vacate the premise. PW1 also stated in his statement that Surinder Kumar visited the house of PW2 and PW6 and asked for rent which they had not actually paid for one year. Minute scrutiny of the statement given by PW1 clearly indicates that accused had entered into the house of PW2 complainant and PW6 with the intention to intimidate them to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 19 get the house vacated without resorting to the provisions of the law. Moreover, PW1 in his cross examination, stated that PW2 and PW6 gave beatings to the accused Surinder Kumar, who .
suffered injury on his foot and was got medically examined by the police. But this court was unable to lay its hand on any document available on record suggestive of the fact that at any point of time accused Surinder Kumar was got medically of examined by police and in this regard no M.L.C. was procured by the police, as such, it is really difficult to accept the version rt put-forth on behalf of PW1, who seems to have resiled from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police.
21. In view of the above, this Court is unable to accept the contention put-forth on behalf of the counsel representing the petitioners-accused that Courts below have fallen in grave error while not appreciating the independent witness PW1, where he categorically stated that PW2 and PW6 gave beatings to the petitioners-accused. This Court sees no force in the aforesaid contention of counsel for the petitioners-accused after perusing the statement of PW1, which does not inspire confidence and appears to be untrustworthy. This Court after perusing statement of PW1 on record, is compelled to presume that, somehow this prosecution witness with view to save the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 20 accused persons resiled from his statement given to the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and such was not rightly given weightage by Courts below.
.
22. PW3 Dr. S.K. Sharma, who medically examined the complainant and issued MLC Ex.PW3/A categorically stated that in the year, 2004 when he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC, Nadaun, he examined Parshotam Lal on 14.4.2004 at 2:15 of a.m. and issued MLC Ex.PW3/A, which was prepared by him and issued under his signature. He stated that injuries were simple rt in nature caused within 4 to 6 hours prior to the time of examination. He also stated that injuries mentioned in MLC can be caused with fist and leg blows. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that injuries mentioned in the MLC are possible by fall.
23. PW4 ASI Nek Ram, investigated the case and got the complainant medically examined at PHC, Nadaun and also prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/B. He also stated that he arrested the accused persons and released them on bail. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had not prepared the site plan at site.
24. PW5 H.C. Kuldeep Chand stated that he had obtained medical opinion of the complainant.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 2125. PW7 Surjeet Kumar stated that his house is adjacent to the residence of Parshotam Lal. He also stated that he knows the accused persons and at about 9:00 p.m., he was present in .
the house. He heard loud cries from the house of Parshotam Lal and when he went to the spot, Tilak Raj and Santosh Kumari were already present there. He also stated that Tilak Raj and Santosh Kumari were saying that Surinder Kumar and of Parshotam Lal were quarreling with each other and then he went back to his house. He further stated that he did not see rt any incident. In his cross-examination, he denied that accused persons gave beatings to the complainant. He further denied that he is stating falsely to help the accused persons.
26. Perusal of statement of PW7 also indicates towards the fact that incident occurred at the house of PW2 Parshotam Lal, which corroborates the statement of PW2 and PW6, where they specifically stated that accused persons entered into their houses and asked when they would vacate the house. Further perusal of statement of PW7 also indicates that Tilak Raj while deposing as PW1 intentionally failed to state clear facts because PW7 categorically stated that when he reached the spot, people were present there and Tilak Raj and Santosh Kumari was amongst them. He also stated that Tilak Raj and Santosh Kumari ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:47 :::HCHP 22 were saying that Surinder Kumar and Patoshotam Lal are having verbal wrangle amongst them. But PW1 in his statement stated that when he reached spot he saw complainant PW2 and his .
wife PW6 giving beatings to accused Surinder Kumar. Story put-
forth by PW-1 appears to be totally false and as such after perusing statement of PW-7, this Court sees no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 and PW6, who categorically of stated that accused entered their house and gave beatings to them. rt
27. After perusing the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence available on record, it is clearly established that accused visited the house of the complainant PW2 solely with a view to get the house vacated by intimidating him. It also stands proved on record that accused Surinder Kumar had come to the house of the complainant under the influence of liquor and asked him to vacate the premise and thereafter he was joined by his brothers/co-accused. Perusal of statement given by PW2 and PW6 clearly suggests that they were given beatings, which stand duly corroborated by the medical evidence led on record by the prosecution.
28. Careful perusal of the statements of PW2 and PW6 clearly suggests that they fully corroborate the versions of each ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:48 :::HCHP 23 other and there are no inconsistencies in their statements.
Though in the present case, PW1 Tilak Raj has not supported the prosecution version but after perusing the statement of PW2 .
and PW6, it cannot be inferred at all that they made false complaint against accused persons because perusal of statement of PW1 and PW7 itself suggest that on the date of occurrence, accused were present on the spot and had entered of into the house of the complainant.
29. Though PW1 stated that complainant and his wife rt gave beatings to the accused Surinder Kumar, but as has been observed above, no evidence, whatsoever has been produced in this regard and as such statement of PW2 and PW6 needs to be taken as a correct that complainant was asked by surinder Kumar to vacate the premise and on his refusal to do so, accused Surinder Kumar gave beating to him and his wife and in this process he (Surinder Kumar) was joined by other co-
accused.
30. Accused persons while recording their statements under Section 313, simply denied the incident. They have not led any evidence on record to prove their innocence and it is none of their case that accused Surinder Kumar was going to his ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:48 :::HCHP 24 store and in the mid way he was assaulted by Parshotam Lal and his wife, which itself falsify the version put-forth by of PW1.
31. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion .
here-in-above, this Court finds sufficient reasons to believe that attempt was being made by accused persons to get the tenanted premises vacated by using force and in that process they entered into the house of the complainant PW2 and gave of beatings to him and her wife PW6 and, as such, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgments passed by both the rt Courts below holding accused persons guilty of offence punishable under Sections 451, 423 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, accordingly same are upheld. This Court sees no force in the present revision petition preferred on behalf of accused and same is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
32. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as submissions having been made by the counsel representing the petitioner for grant of the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act can be extended in favour of accused persons, especially, keeping in view the fact that they are first offenders, unemployed and have family to support. Perusal of record ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:48 :::HCHP 25 suggests that alleged incident had occurred in the year 2004 i.e. 12 years back, meaning thereby accused have already suffered agony of long litigation which remained pending in the .
Courts and during this period they remained under trauma and apprehension of being punished. Moreover, as has been informed by the counsel representing the petitioner that all the aforesaid accused are unemployed and have small children.
of
33. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion made herein above, this court has no hesitation to conclude rt that courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence available on record, hence, the judgments passed by the courts below are upheld. However, at this stage, keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated in para (supra), this court is of the opinion that benefit of Section-4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be extended in favour of the petitioners.
Accordingly, Registry is directed to call for the report of the Probation Officer, Hamirpur, H.P., within four weeks. Registry to list this matter on 13th September, 2016.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.
August 2, 2016 sanjeev ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:56:48 :::HCHP