Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lalit Kumar vs Of on 29 August, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. Revision No. 43 of 2012
Decided on : 29.08.2023
Lalit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional
Advocates General, with Ms.
Leena Guleria and Ms.
Sunaina, Deputy Advocated
General.
Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)
Petitioner has filed the present revision petition, against the judgment, dated 18th November, 2011, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2011, titled as Lalit Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh.
1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 22. Vide judgment, dated 11th November, 2011, the learned First Appellate Court, has partly allowed the .
appeal, filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the convict'), under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh rt (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').
3. By virtue of judgment of conviction, dated 31st March, 2011, the learned trial Court has convicted the convict, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), while, he has been acquitted for commission of offences punishable under Section 341 IPC.
Vide order of sentence, dated 17 th May, 2011, the convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/-, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 3In default of the payment of fine, the convict has been further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a .
period of fifteen days. It has specifically been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
4. The learned First Appellate Court, while partly allowing the appeal filed by the convict, has partly modified of the judgment of the learned trial Court and the convict has been acquitted for the commission of offences, punishable rt under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. However, he has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/-. In default, the convict has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
5. The instant revision petition has been admitted for hearing by this Court, vide order, dated 3 rd March, 2012.
6. Vide order, dated 25th July, 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.
::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 47. Today, the convict, who is present in the Court, vide his separate statement, has stated that he does not .
want to press the instant revision petition, filed against the judgment of conviction and prayed that he may be released on probation.
8. Perusal of the record shows that the convict is of the first offender, the offence committed by him is not premeditated one, no subsequent offence has been stated rt to be committed by him and no quarrel whatsoever, with the complainant, has taken place thereafter. The offence appears to have been committed in the spur of the moment.
9. The convict has been named as accused in FIR No. 127 of 2008, dated 15th July, 2008. The learned trial Court, while passing the order of sentence, dated 17 th May, 2011, has held that since, the convict has been found guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, where life imprisonment is one of the punishment, as such, the convict is not entitled for the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.
::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 510. By the learned First Appellate Court, the convict has been convicted and sentenced for commission .
of the offence, punishable under Section 325 IPC. The punishment provided for the offence, punishable under Section 325 IPC, is neither death nor imprisonment for life.
As such, the benefit of Probation of Offender's Act can be of extended to the convict.
11. The report of the Probation Officer perused.
rt
12. The Probation Officer has specifically mentioned that the conduct of the convict, during past years, in the society, is good. Though, as per report, two cases had been registered against the convict, but, he has been acquitted in both the cases.
13. The offences, for which, the convict has been convicted, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The convict is having the permanent abode in Village Rakani, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P., 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 convict, any other incident, had taken place, between the parties, i.e. the ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 6 complainant and the convict. The convict has already faced the agony of the trial, including the pendency of the .
appeal, for the last fifteen years.
14. Our Criminal Jurisprudence System is reformatory in nature. With the passage of time, it has been realized that sending the first offender to jail, to of undergo substantive sentence, does not produce good results, as, the first offender/convict, sometimes, may rt come in contact with the hardened criminals.
15. 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.
16. While, not pressing his revision petition, against the judgment of conviction, the convict has categorically stated that he is the first offender and the sole bread earner of his family. Rejecting the prayer of the convict to ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 7 release him on probation, would amount to punishing his family members, for the offences, committed by the convict.
.
17. Considering the nature of the offences, this Court is of the view that it would be expedient to release the convict on probation of good conduct, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence, as imposed of by the learned trial Court.
18. Considering all these facts, the revision petition rt of the convict 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 convict to undergo the substantive sentence, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 30,000/-, with one surety 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 substantive sentence, as and when, called upon to do so, during the period of two years.
19. The convict is also directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 10,000/-, which shall be in addition to the fine amount, ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 8 already deposited by him, in this case, with the learned trial Court, within a period of one month from today. The .
₹ said amount of 10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant, as compensation, by the learned trial Court, after issuing notices to her, in this regard.
20. It is clarified that in case of violation of any of of the conditions, so imposed, including the terms and conditions of the requisite bonds, the order of sentence rt shall revive automatically, without reference to this Court.
In that eventuality, the convict is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive sentence.
21. In view of the above, the revision petition is partly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh ) Judge August 29, 2023 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS