Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash And Another vs State Of Haryana on 23 January, 2014
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1453 of 2006.
Date of Decision : 23.01.2014.
Om Parkash and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
***
T.P.S. Mann, J.(Oral)
Along with the present revision petition filed by Om Parkash and Sukhdev Singh convicts against their conviction and sentence, this Court intends to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 2379 of 2007 filed by Anil Kumar as both the revisions arise out of FIR No. 66 dated 04.02.1998 under Sections 223/224 IPC, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.
According to the prosecution, Anil Kumar @ Tota son of Maan Singh and Kuldeep Singh son of Nonihal Singh were confined in Central Jail, Ambala and were required to be produced before different Courts at Chandigarh on 04.02.1998. Accordingly, the jail authorities at Ambala handed over the said two inmates to UGC Anant Ram and Constables Om Parkash and Sukhdev Singh for being produced in the Chandigarh Courts. While they were being taken in a Roadways Bus, Anil Kumar managed to escape when the bus came to a halt at Sadopur Kanchan 2014.01.25 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1453 of 2006 -2- barrier, Ambala City. Subsequently, UGC Anant Ram got recorded his statement on the basis of which, aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioners and Anil Kumar.
After completion of investigation and presentation of the challan, the petitioners were charged for an offence under Section 223 IPC. At that time, Anil Kumar stood declared as proclaimed offender. The trial of the case ended with conviction of the petitioners by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, who, vide order dated 13.01.2004 convicted them for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
Aggrieved of their conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed an appeal, which came to be decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide judgment dated 09.05.2006. The conviction of the present petitioners was upheld. However, their sentences of imprisonment were set-aside and it was held that the ends of justice would be fully met, if they were sentenced to pay fine only as imposed by the trial Magistrate. Still not satisfied, the present petitioners filed the present revision.
Subsequent to the conviction of the present petitioners by the trial court, Anil Kumar was also arrested and tried for the offence under Section 224 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 01.08.2005, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, convicted him for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to Kanchan 2014.01.25 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1453 of 2006 -3- pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Said Anil Kumar then filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)/Fast Track Court, Ambala on 08.09.2007 by maintaining his conviction and sentence. He then filed Criminal Revision No. 2379 of 2007 in which he was granted the concession of bail on 20.05.2009.
Learned counsel for Om Parkash and Sukhdev Singh- petitioners has made an attempt to challenge their conviction and sentence. He has contended that UGC Anant Ram, who was over all Incharge of the Police party, which was carrying Anil Kumar from Ambala Jail to Chandigarh for being produced in the Courts there, ought to have been arrayed as an accused. However, he has been able to manipulate the things by becoming a complainant and implicated the present petitioners. However, after going through the evidence available on the record, this Court finds that though the custody of Anil Kumar was handed over to UGC Anant Ram but said Anant Ram was having the services of the present petitioners available for keeping Anil Kumar in custody for his production in the different Courts at Chandigarh. Therefore, UGC Anant Ram had no role to play in the escape of Anil Kumar from custody. However, from a perusal of the statement of PW2 UGC Anant Ram, it is made out that it was Om Parkash-petitioner, who had the actual custody of Anil Kumar at the relevant time and it was because of his negligence that Anil Kumar managed to escape from confinement. At no point of time, Anil Kumar was in the custody of Sukhdev Singh-petitioner. Merely because Sukhdev Singh-petitioner had been handed over Kanchan 2014.01.25 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1453 of 2006 -4- the SLR by UGC Anant Ram is no ground to hold that he had any role to play in the escape of Anil Kumar from custody.
As regards the revision filed by Anil Kumar, this Court has perused the evidence led against him by the prosecution and come to the conclusion that his conviction is well merited. He had escaped from the police custody while he was being taken from Ambala Jail for being produced in various Courts at Chandigarh and taking advantage of the over crowding in the bus, in which he was being taken, that he managed to flee when the bus stopped at Sadopur barrier, Ambala City. However, there is scope for granting some concession to Anil Kumar-petitioner in the matter of sentence of imprisonment as he has been facing the agony of criminal proceedings for the last more than 15 years.
Resultantly, the conviction of Sukhdev Singh-petitioner under Section 223 IPC and fine of `200/- are set-aside. The conviction of Om Parkash-petitioner under Section 223 IPC and that of Anil Kumar under Section 224 IPC are maintained. The fine of `200/- imposed upon Om Parkash-petitioner is also maintained. In the case of Anil Kumar-petitioner, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. His sentence of fine along with its default clause is maintained.
Both the revisions are, accordingly, disposed of.
January 23, 2014. (T.P.S. MANN)
kanchan JUDGE
Kanchan
2014.01.25 14:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh