Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Subhash and Anr. – Appellants
versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.515 of 2007
Decided on 4.4.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned AGA with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder

IMPORTANT POINT
Hurt and intentional insult – Benefit of probation can be extended to accused if he has unblemished past otherwise.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323 and 504 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 115(2) and 352] – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 415] – Hurt and intentional insult – Conviction and sentence – Prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt against all appellants with cogent and unshakable evidence – No reason to interfere in well reasoned judgment and order passed by trial court – This litigation has been going on for last 20 years and has been fought tenaciously through various courts – Appellant who has had a good career throughout but for this one aberration has since been dismissed from service on account of his conviction – There is no useful purpose for immediately sending appellants to jail for serving sentence awarded by trial court – Ends of justice would be met if appellant be released on probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on conditions to be imposed by Trial Court – If appellants fail to observe good conduct and behaviour during probation, or is found violating any condition imposed, Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bond of good conduct calling appellants to serve out sentence awarded by Court below. (Paras 11, 12, 19, 20 and 21)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

In this appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 374 CrPC, the challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 04.12.2007, passed by learned FTC/IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.200 of 1999, State Vs. Subhash and others, whereby the said court at the conclusion of trial has held the appellants-Subhash and Ram Prasad guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, the defaulter was directed to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment.

2. The appellants were further convicted under Section 504 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment within a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that an application was lodged by PW1-Dharma in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar with the averments that on 20.05.1996 at about 07:00 PM, accused-Subhash, Ram Prasad, Rampal, Jailpal and Narendra surrounded him on the way and while hurling abuses to him, Subhash threatened that he would let the informant understand the consequences of lodging a case and then all these people began to commit maarpeet with the informant by sticks, batons, fists and slaps. The informant could save himself and on the alarm raised by him Jaipal, Prabhudayal and several other people came on the spot, who witnessed the occurrence and saved the applicant. These accused persons while going extended the complainant a threat to kill him in future. On this information the court ordered for registration of the case under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC being Crime No.66A/96 against the accused persons, in which the charge sheet was submitted against the accused. The case was committed to the court of Sessions by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 01.02.1999. On 17.11.1999 learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 147, 323/149, 504 and 506 IPC to which the accused persons denied charges and claimed to be tried.

4. As many as six witnesses were produced in oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution. They are PW1-Dharma, PW2-Jaipal, PW3-Dr. P.K. Bhatnagar, PW4-SI-Naresh Chandra Jauhari, PW5- SSI-Rajendra Prasad, PW6-Const. Shyam Veer Singh.

5. Thereafter statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which the accused persons pleaded false implication by denying the occurrence. On behalf of the defence DW1-Subhash, DW2-Ram Prasad and DW3-Smt.Santosh were examined. After examination of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court held the appellants guilty as mentioned in para no.1 of this judgment.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire documents available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants having argued extensively finally submitted before this Court that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is based on the evidence which is not reliable due to several contradictions and developments during trial. He also argued and submitted alternately that if this Court is not convinced, on the arguments advanced by him, the appellants may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’).

8. To this submission learned State counsel has no serious objection and he also admitted that the appellants can be extended the benefit of first offenders act.

9. It was also argued that the appellants are now running in their sixties; it was their first offence; none of the appellants has any criminal antecedent; they belong to the poor strata of society and also have liability of their children; and they are suffering from various ailments and also are residents of same localities

Click Here to Read the rest of this document