The absence of articulated motive does not invalidate witness testimony when supported by reliable evidence; courts must consider reformative sentencing provisions for young, first-time offenders, necessitating special reasons for denying probation.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment/order dated 23.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner and are being decided by the instant common order. Vide impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants for offences under Sections 324, 149, 147 and 452 of IPC. Section 307 of IPC was also initially invoked, but was dropped later on.

2. Relevant facts are as under:

2.1 On the night between 19.03.1992 and 20.03.1992, complainant Jamila, her husband Jamaldin and their three sons (including Rafiq) were sleeping at their house in Mohalla Madha Ram colony, Bikaner. At about 3-00 AM, their door was knocked from outside. Jamaldin switched on the room light and enquired who was knocking at the door. Upon this, he was asked to first open the door and would then know who they were. As Jamaldin did not open the door, it was forced open from outside. Five men, namely Babu Lal, with a razor, Jeth Mal holding a chain in their respective in his hands, Hari Shankar, Rajoo (Rajinder) son of Anna Ram and Raj Kumar son of Ram Chander (the appellants herein) barged into the room and started manhandling and beating Jamila wife of Jamaldin. When the latter intervened to save his wife, he was also attacked and inflicted injuries. Their son Rafiq also woke up and tried to save them. He too was attacked and inflicted injuries by the appellants.

2.2 Report of the occurrence was lodged with the police, which led to the registration of FIR under Sections 458, 307, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station, Naya Shahr. Upon completion of investigation, challan was presented on Court.

2.3 The trial of the appellants led to their conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 324, 324/149, 147, 452 IPC vide judgment dated 23.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Court. They are in appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record.

4. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court and the consequential sentences awarded to the appellants have been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants saying that no motive has been ascribed to the appellants for the commission of offence; there was considerable delay in lodging of the FIR and there was time and opportunity for improvements, exaggerations and introduction of falsehoods in the actual story; PW-6 Rafiq injured deposed that on the day of occurrence he was not in the house and was sleeping in the shop; neither of the two independent witnesses named in the complaint namely PWs Hanuman and Shanker Bishnoi, who were examined by the prosecution, supported it’s story, they were declared hostile but even thereafter, nothing could be elicited by the prosecution in support of it’s case; PWs Jamila complainant, her husband Jamaldin and their son Rafiq are members of the same family and highly interested witnesses and that there are discrepancies in their statements making the same unreliable to support the conviction. Learned counsel for appellants thus urged for acceptance of the appeals and acquittal of the appellants. Lastly and alternatively, learned counsel for appellants prayed that in the event of conviction being upheld, they be shown leniency in the matter of punishment.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has contested these submissions saying that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court are well founded, in consonance with the record and the applicable law.

6. I am inclined to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor. Let us see how.

6.1 The occurrence took place at about 3-00 AM on 19.03.1992.