Himachal Pradesh High Court
Devinder Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 October, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 122 of 2008
Date of Decision: 23.9.2016.
.
______________________________ _____________________________
[
Devinder Kumar .........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ............Respondent.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1? Yes
For the petitioner:
rt Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional
Advocate General, with Rajat Chauhan,
Law Officer.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2008, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2007, affirming the judgment and order dated 15.9.2007 and 18.9.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 163- I/2002/III-II/2002, whereby present accused-petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for having committed offence Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP -2-punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, present petitioner along with co-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.PC before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi , HP, however fact remains that of learned Sessions judge vide judgment dated 19.7.2008 acquitted the co-accused Rajinder Kumar from the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 24 IPC by way of giving benefit of doubt. As far as rt present petitioner is concerned, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid background, present petitioner accused filed the instant revision petition praying therein for quashing and setting aside of the judgment of conviction passed by the courts below.
3. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that on 21st February, 2002 at about 9:00am, the complainant namely Govind Ram (PW1) had gone to his fields, wherein he observed that Nag Ram, who was having his house adjacent to his land, was constructing a wall of his house on the public path way. The complainant advised him not to construct his house on the path way and thereafter, he along with Sukh Ram and Sunder Lal started walking towards his house. In the meanwhile, present petitioner-accused came ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP -3- there and restrained him from proceeding further. As per prosecution story, Rajinder Kumar i.e. accused No.2 also started fighting with the .
complainant. Soon thereafter, his elder brother (present petitioner) appeared on the spot along with wooden plank and gave blow on the head of the complainant with the plank, as a result of which, he fell down and lost consciousness. Thereafter, injured was rushed to Zonal of Hospital, Mandi, wherefrom, a telephonic information qua the incident was given to the police. Police on receipt of information, registered FIR and after investigation, presented the charge sheet against the rt accused in the competent court of law. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., after satisfying itself that a prima facie case exists against the accused, framed the charges under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 506 of the IPC, to which, accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of having committed offences under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 506 of the IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them, description whereof, has already been given above.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, accused, filed an ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP -4- appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.PC, before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, HP, whereby the same was dismissed vide .
judgment dated 19.7.2008. Hence, the present criminal revision petition before this Court.
5. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the judgments passed by both the courts of below are not sustainable in the eye of law as same are not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record as well as law rt and facts and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Gupta, strenuously argued that learned courts below miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and have come to wrong conclusions and injury caused to the complainant cannot be attributed to the petitioner, rather the same was caused by fall. Mr. Gupta, invited attention of this Court to the statement of PW2 Sukh Ram, to demonstrate that there was enmity between the petitioner and the complainant solely with a view to escape his liability to pay Rs. 10,000/-, which he had borrowed from the father of the accused, falsely implicated the accused in the present case. Mr. Gupta vehemently contended that courts below have erred in not taking into consideration the FIR, which was the result of due deliberation and information was received in the Police Station at 12:45 pm as per Diary No. 9 Ext.PW6/A, wherein it was recorded that one Om Parkash reported ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP -5- that his brother has sustained injuries in a fight and then police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant. As per Mr. .
Gupta, MLC clearly reveals that one constable was already present in the hospital at 11:00am but when the complainant was admitted in the hospital, Om Parkash had no occasion to inform the police on telephone and as such, prosecution deliberately did not record the FIR of on this information which constituted the offence, rather waited to record the statement of PW1 (complainant)under Section 154 Cr.PC after due deliberation and the delay in filing the FIR, makes entire case rt of the proseuciton doubtful and on this score alone, petitioner deserves to be acquitted. Mr. Gupta further contended that statement under Section 154 Cr.PC of the complainant cannot be relied upon as the same is hit by Section 162 Cr.PC being recorded during the course of the investigation. He vehemently argued that the learned courts below have erred in law in not considering the fact that there is nothing on record to connect the injuries sustained by the complainant with the accused, which fact is clear from the MLC showing nothing qua the time and when the injury was caused? Even the doctor was not sure that when the injury was caused, which fact has not been considered by the courts below and as such, the judgments passed by the courts below deserve to be quashed and set-aside. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Vinod Gupta, argued that courts below failed to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP -6- consider the fact that had accused given blow on the head of the complainant, there would have been some external injuries on his .
person. Mr. Gupta, further argued that Sukh Ram i.e. PW2 is an interested witness who is the son of the real uncle (taya) of the complainant and prosecution intentionally not examined the sole independent witness i.e. Sunder Lal who was present on the spot. In view of of the above, Mr. Gupta, prayed that petition may be accepted after setting aside the judgments by the courts below.
6. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional rt Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, supported the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the impugned judgments suggests that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Rupinder contended that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court, is warranted and this Court has very limited powers while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.PC to re-appreciate the evidence, especially when it stands duly proved on record that the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. In this regard, reliance is ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP -7- placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999)2 Supreme .
Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:-
"In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate of court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as rt Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone carefully through the record.
8. True, it is that while exercising the power under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has very limited power to re-
appreciate the evidence available on record. But in the present case, where accused has been found guilty of having committed offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not perverse and same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record, undertook an exercise to critically examine the evidence available on record to reach fair and just decision in the case.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP -8-9. 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 Vs. 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 of 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 sentence or order. The relevant para of the rt judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"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 preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and 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."
10. During trial proceedings, prosecution with a view to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt examined as many as eight witnesses, whereas statement of the accused under Section ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP -9- 313 Cr.PC was also recorded by the court below, wherein both the accused denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed .
to be innocent. Accused also led evidence and examined two witnesses in their defence. As per prosecution, on the ill fated day, at about 9.00am, the complainant who was working in his fields was given blow of the wooden plank on his head by the accused, of as a result of which, he sustained fracture of temporal bone.
11. Govind Ram PW1 (the complainant) deposed that on rt 21st February, 2002, accused Rajinder Kumar caught hold of him from his neck and started beating him. PW1 further stated that immediately thereafter, accused-petitioner came to the spot and inflicted injury with wooden plank on his head and the incident was witnessed by Sukh Ram and Sunder.
12. Sukh Ram (PW2) also stated that on 21st February, 2002, at about 9am, he after giving fodder to his cattle was coming to his house, in the meanwhile, he himself saw Rajinder Kumar, who had caught hold of the complainant from his neck and immediately thereafter another accused (present petitioner) came with wooden plank and inflicted injury upon the head of the complainant. He further stated that accused also threatened to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 10 -
kill the complainant. He also stood witness to the recovery of Danda Ext.P1, which was effected vide fard Ext.PW2/A. In his cross .
examination he feigned ignorance qua the suggestion put to him that the complainant had to repay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the father of the accused and accused, several times demanded the same. PW2 further admitted that he did not try to rescue of Govind Ram and danda Ext.P-1 was commonly found item. In his cross examination, PW2 categorically stated that threats were rt extended on the next date. However, he specifically denied the suggestion put to him that complainant suffered injury by falling on the stone.
13. Conjoint reading of the cross examination conducted on aforesaid prosecution witnesses (PW 1 and 2) clearly suggests that defence was not able to shatter their testimony, which was definitely reliable and trustworthy. Careful perusal of the statement made by these PWs in their examination-in-chief clearly suggests that both the witnesses have been very very candid, specific and straight forward while narrating the sequence of event actually occurred before the ill fated incident. Both PW1 and PW2 unequivocally stated that Rajinder Kumar caught hold of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 11 -
the neck of the complainant and another accused, who was carrying danda in his hand, gave blow on the head of the .
complainant, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injury on his head. Interestingly, no suggestion worth the name was put to these PWs qua motive, if any, to falsely implicate the accused in a false case. Though, defence by way of suggestion asked PW2 that of the complainant had to return an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the father of the accused but he in his cross-examination feigned rt ignorance about the aforesaid factum. At this stage, if aforesaid statements given by PW1 and PW2 are seen vis-à-vis medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, it clearly corroborates the version of the complainant i.e. PW1 and PW2. It has specifically come in medical evidence that on 21.2.2002 at about 11 am the complainant (PW1) was rushed to Zonal Hospital Mandi in injured condition, where he was found to have suffered grievous injury on his head.
14. PW3 Dr. Ajay Pathak, categorically stated that he examined injured and found no visible injury and referred the inured for x-ray and sought the opinion of the radiologist. The injured was admitted in the surgical ward. PW3 further stated that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 12 -
as per report of the Radiologist, the injured sustained fracture of temporal bone. PW4 Dr. L.D. Vaidya also stated that injured .
sustained fracture of temporal bone and the injury was grievous in nature.
15. Conjoint reading of aforesaid witnesses (PW3 and PW4), who examined the complainant after alleged incident, of clearly corroborates the version put forth on behalf of the complainant as well as PW2 that the complainant was given rt beatings and blow on his head by wooden plank by the accused.
PW3 categorically opined that injured sustained fracture on temporal bone, which injury is grievous in nature. PW4 (Radiologist) also stated that he took x-ray of the injured and perusal of the x-ray revealed fracture of temporal bone on the head of the injured.
16. PW5 and 6 are formal witnesses who may not be relevant at this stage, while deciding present petition.
17. Accused by way of leading evidence in their support also examined DW1 Sh. Nag and DW2 Netar Singh. DW1 stated that the complainant sustained injuries by fall on the stone. He also stated that accused persons were not present on the spot ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 13 -
and they did not cause any injury to the complainant. He stated that complainant had to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the .
father of the petitioner-accused and he with a view to escape the liability filed this case against the petitioner. Similarly, DW2 Netar Singh also stated that the injured/complainant was liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the father of the petitioner-accused and with a view of to escape the liability of the payment, false case has been registered against the petitioner. But interestingly, these aforesaid rt defence witnesses, nowhere stated that whether they were present at the time of alleged incident or not? Though these defence witnesses unequivocally stated that the complainant was not given beatings by the accused but interestingly, they are silent about their presence, if any, on the site at the time of the alleged incident. Since they did not state anything qua their presence or source from where they gathered this information that on the ill fated day, they saw the complainant suffering injury by falling on the stone, hence this Court is of the view that version put forth on behalf of DWs 1 and 2 was rightly not taken into consideration by the courts below while recording conviction against the present petitioner- accused being unreliable and untrustworthy.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP- 14 -
18. Similarly, defence was not able to prove factum, if any, with regard to repayment of loan allegedly taken by the .
complainant from the father of the accused because father of the accused was never examined, who could be the best person to depose before the Court below that the complainant had to pay amount of Rs. 10,000/- to him.
of
19. After perusing the aforesaid evidence led on record by the defence, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that rt defence was not able to prove any motive for which, the complainant allegedly filed false complaint implicating the present petitioner accused as well as other co-accused. Learned first appellate Court while deciding the appeal preferred by both the accused came to conclusion that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the co-accused (Rajinder Kumar) and accordingly, acquitted him on the benefit of doubt. However, learned first appellate Court found the present petitioner guilty of having committed offence, as referred above.
20. This Court after examining the entire evidence led on record by the respective party, has no reason to differ with the judgments of conviction passed against the accused by the courts ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 15 -
below because the prosecution has been successful to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The statements made by PW1 .
and 2, wherein they stated that the petitioner accused inflicted injuries on the head of the complainant, was sufficient to conclude that accused caused grievous injury to the complainant by inflicting blow of wooden plank on his head. The aforesaid of prosecution witnesses have been very very candid, straightforward and specific while narrating the sequence of event, occurred at the time of rt the incident at the time of medical examination of the complainant.
Though, accused by way of leading evidence DW1 and DW2 made an attempt to prove on record that the complainant had motive to falsely implicate them in a case but as has been discussed in detail, defence was not able to prove the innocence of the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence and their version was rightly rejected by the court below. This Court sees no reason to differ with the well reasoned findings recorded by the courts below, wherein present petitioner-
accused has been held guilty of having committed offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
21. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner-
accused also prayed that accused may be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 keeping in view his being first offender. Mr. Gupta also stated that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 16 -
mitigating circumstance in this case is that approximately, more than 14 years have passed after happening of that incident and eight years .
have been passed after passing of the judgment of conviction dated 15.9.2007. The accused petitioner has already suffered much agony during the pendency of the appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, as well as in High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In support of of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Yudhbir Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh rt 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 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 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 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.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 17 -
22. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Hon'ble Apex Court judgment Ramesh Kumar @ Babla versus State of Punjab 2016 AIR (SC) .
2858, wherein it has been held as under:
"7. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part by converting appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC. On the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the occurrence took place in 1997. In his statement under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure the appellant gave his age in 2002 as 36 years. He claimed that he and others went to the place of occurrence on getting of information that his brother Sanjay Kumar was assaulted by Ramesh Kumar (Complainant). He brought his brother to Police Station and lodged a report. As noticed by trial court, parties are involved in civil as well as criminal litigation from before. High Court has noted that appellant, as per custody certificate, is not rt involved in any other case. In such circumstances, it is not deemed necessary to send the appellant immediately to Jail custody after about 19 years of the occurrence when he appears to be 50 years of age and fully settled in life.
8. In view of aforesaid, in our view the ends of justice would be met by granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. We order accordingly and direct that the appellant be released on executing appropriate bond before the trial court to appear and receive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year when called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior."
23. The reliance is also placed upon Hon'ble Apex Court judgment Hari Kishan and State of Haryana versus Sukhbir Singh 1988 AIR (SC) 2127, wherein it has been held as under:
"8. The question next to be considered is whether the accused are entitled to the benefit of probation of good conduct? We gave our anxious consideration to the contentions urged by counsel. We are of opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in this regard also. Many offenders are not dangerous criminals but are weak characters or who have surrendered to temptation or provocation. In placing such type of offenders, on probation, the Court encourages their own sense of responsibility for their future and protect them from the stigma and possible contamination of prison. In this case, the High Court has observed that there was no previous history of enmity between the parties and the occurrence was an outcome of a sudden flare up. These are not showing to be incorrect. We have ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 18 -
already said that the accused had no intention to commit murder of any person. Therefore, the extension of benefit of the beneficial legislation applicable to the first offenders cannot be said to be inappropriate.
.
9. This takes us to, the third questions which we have formulated earlier in this judgments. The High Court has directed each of the respondents to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation to Joginder. The High Court has not referred to any provision of law in support of the order of compensation. But that can be traced to section 357 Criminal Procedure Code Section 357, leaving aside the unnecessary, provides:-
"357. Order to pay compensation:
(1) When a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the of Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or rt injury caused by the offence, when compensation is in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a civil Court;
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation. Such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been sentenced.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its power of revision.
(5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this Section.
11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by installments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP- 19 -
24. This Court after considering the aforesaid submissions having been made by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, as well as .
law cited herein above, is not inclined to grant the benefit of probation in favour of the petitioner-accused because there is overwhelming evidence on record, as has been discussed in detail, to conclude that the complainant was given beatings by the petitioner-accused, as a of result of which, he suffered fracture on temporal bone, which stands duly proved by the medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. However, this Court keeping in view the fact that incident rt had occurred on 21.2.2002 i.e. 14 years back, and thereafter matter remained pending before the learned appellate Court and thereafter in this Court, is of the view that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court can be modified by awarding adequate compensation to the complainant, who admittedly suffered grievous injury caused by the present accused petitioner.
25. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court while upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by the courts below modifies the sentence awarded by the Court below and direct the petitioner-accused to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant/victim in lieu of sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. Petitioner accused is directed to deposit aforesaid amount with the trial Court, within one ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP
- 20 -
month from the receipt of the copy of the judgment, failing which he would render himself liable to serve the sentence as imposed by the .
learned trial Court. Needless to say, on complainant's moving appropriate application, the learned trial Court would release the aforesaid amount of compensation.
of
23rd September, 2016 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge.
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:23:17 :::HCHP