Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 September, 2014
Author: T.P.S.Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.2544 of 2013
Date of Decision : September 09, 2014
Kashmir Singh
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
Respondents No.2 to 10 were tried for committing offences under Sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 148 and 149 IPC on the allegations that on 5.9.2006 at about 5.00 p.m., they, while armed with weapons entered the house of the petitioner and caused injuries to the petitioner, his mother Maya Devi and father Bir Singh. They also broke the earthen pitcher and cots lying in the house. Vide judgment and order dated 17.8.2012, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mukerian convicted them under Sections 323, 324, 148 read with Section 149 IPC but acquitted them for the offences under Sections 452 and 427 IPC. Keeping in view the fact that they were poor persons and first offenders and some of them were ladies, the trial Court, instead of awarding them sentences of imprisonment, ordered their release on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act subject to their furnishing personal and surety bonds for a period SATISH KUMAR 2014.10.01 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2544 of 2013 -2- of one year undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behaviour during the said period and to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon. They were also directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- each as costs of litigation.
Aggrieved of their conviction and grant of probation, respondents No.2 to 10 preferred an appeal. Similarly, the petitioner filed separate appeal for challenging the acquittal of respondents No.2 to 10 for offences under Sections 452 and 427 IPC and also the order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the trial Court to the extent of granting the benefit of probation to respondents No.2 to 10 instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment to them. Both the appeals were disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiapur vide order dated 19.7.2013 by upholding the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision filed by the petitioner under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court finds that the place where the occurrence had taken place was only a courtyard and not the bounded property of the petitioner himself. In the site plan Ex.PW6/D, prepared by the Investigating Officer the occurrence was shown to have taken place at Point B which was in the Varandah of the house of the petitioner. The said Varandah was open on all the sides, excepting the one abutting the outer wall of the house. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondents No.2 to 10 SATISH KUMAR 2014.10.01 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2544 of 2013 -3- were liable for committing offence under Section 452 IPC. The reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Inderjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(4) RCR (Crl.) 593 is misplaced as in that case the occurrence had taken place on the roof of the house which would in all circumstances is considered as a part of the house. On the other hand, in the present case, the occurrence had taken place not within the bounded area but in the courtyard/varandah of the house of the petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be found with the judgments of the the Courts below in acquitting respondents No.2 to 10 of the charges under Sections 452 and 427 IPC.
The occurrence in question had taken place on 5.9.2006. Respondents No.2 to 10 faced the criminal prosecution for more than six years. They are not shown to be involved in any other case. Two of them are women. The injuries caused by them were simple in nature. Under these circumstances, the trial Court was justified in extending the benefit of probation to them and the said benefit being upheld by the lower appellate Court. Hence, no case is made out for any interference in the grant of benefit of probation to respondents No.2 to 10.
In view of the above, the revision is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
September 09, 2014 JUDGE
satish
SATISH KUMAR
2014.10.01 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh