Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hakam Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 October, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No.A-172-MA of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.A-172-MA of 2012
Date of Decision: 22.10.2013
Hakam Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, D.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 03.10.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby, respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charge under Section 308 IPC and have been released on probation under Sections 325, 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the basis of statement of appellant-Hakam Singh, an FIR No.65 dated 07.09.2008 was registered under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC on the ground that on 06.09.2008 at about 7.30 a.m, when he was going to drop his daugher to school on bicycle, the accused persons namely Niranjan Singh, Amrik Singh and Sher Singh came from the opposite side and attacked him and Kaur Gurpreet 2013.10.24 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.A-172-MA of 2012 2 caused multiple injuries. Lalkara was raised by accused Sher Singh. On receiving multiple injuries, the complainant was admitted to Civil Hospital, Sangur. However, the trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 308 IPC but convicted them under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506, 34 IPC. Later on, all of them were released on probation.
The present appeal has been filed by the complainant against acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4 under Section 308 IPC as well as releasing them on probation by raising various arguments.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were more than nine injuries on the person of the appellant and all the accused had beaten him and caused multiple injuries. As per opinion of the doctor, all the injuries collectively were dangerous to life. Learned counsel further submits that the accused have been released on probation only on the ground that they are only bread winners of their families but without taking into consideration the seriousness of the injuries and conduct of the accused persons, whereas, Sher Singh is the father and Amrik Singh and Niranjan Singh are the sons and all of them are living together. A wrong averment has been made that they are sole bread winner of their families and they have illegally been released on probation by mentioning wrong facts. Learned counsel also submits that the acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4 under Section 308 IPC is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases Karamjit Singh vs State of Punjab 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 227 as well as Manjappa vs State of Karnataka 2007 Crl. L.J. 3220, in support of his contentions.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the judgment of trial Court is based on evidence and no interference is required. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries were on the non- Kaur Gurpreet 2013.10.24 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.A-172-MA of 2012 3 vital parts of the body and as per opinion of the doctor, there was no specific injury which could be dangerious to life. As per opinion of doctor- Virinder Singh (PW-6), there was no external injury on the lips and dental hygiene was opined to be poor. Accordingly, offence under Section 308 IPC was not made out and the accused were acquitted for the said offence. Learned counsel also submits that the accused were not the habitual offenders as no other criminal case was pending against them and as they were not the previous convict and were released on probation.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment of trial Court as well as other documents on the file.
As per Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused can be released on probation in certain cases by keeping good conduct and behaviour. Section 361 requires the Court to record special reasons where it does not grant benefit of Section 360 of the Code. Section 361 Cr.P.C is reproduced as under :-
"361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases - Where in any case the Court could have dealt with - • an accused person under Section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or • a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatement, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so."
In judgment Manjappa (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court Kaur Gurpreet 2013.10.24 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.A-172-MA of 2012 4 has considered the scope for grant of relief under the provisions of Section 361 of the Code or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by re-considering earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Om Parkash and Ors. V. State of Haryana 2001(10) SCC 477 as held that such a relief should be granted where the offence had not been of very grave nature and in certain cases where mens rea remained absent.
As per Section 360 of the Code, when any person not under 21 years of age, is convicted for an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less or a person under 21 years of age or any woman convicted for offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and not a previous convict, can be released on probation, in case, it appears to the Court that his or her conduct is such and it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment provided after considering age, character, antecedent or physcial and mental condition of the offender.
In the present case, however no reason, whatsoever, has been mentioned and the respondents No.2 to 4 have been released on probation only on the basis of the fact that they are sole bread winner of their families. Although, there is no bar for releasing them on probation as nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the accused are having any criminal background or they are involved in certain serious offences or their conduct is such due to which they cannot be released on probation. Moreover, the accused respondents are already facing trial since registration of FIR i.e 07.09.2008 and there is no other reason which shows that they should not have been released on probation.
Keeping in view the facts as mentioned above and after considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, I do Kaur Gurpreet 2013.10.24 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.A-172-MA of 2012 5 not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court and as such, the petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 22.10.2013 JUDGE gurpreet Kaur Gurpreet 2013.10.24 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh