Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Nagendra Das - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Rev. No. 407 of 2004
Decided On : 28-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner Mr. Gaurav Abhishek
For the Respondent: Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P

An appellate court must consider Section 360 Cr.P.C. for first-time offenders over twenty-one years of age. If the court decides against exercising this power, it must record specific reasons, as this beneficial provision is designed to prioritize reformation over retributive punishment in appropriate circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, 337 and 341 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 360, 361 and 428 - Conviction for voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt - Probation of good conduct - Applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. to first-time offenders who are over 21 years of age - Beneficial legislation - Purpose is to provide a reformative approach rather than purely retributive punishment. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 16)

(B) Appellate Review - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - Interference with conviction is warranted only if findings are perverse or illegal. Findings of recovery and medical corroboration held satisfactory; no interference with conviction required. (Paras 5, 8, 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
An altercation occurred between neighbors involving physical assault with hard and blunt objects, resulting in a fracture. Following a conviction by the trial court for assault offences and confirmation of the sentence by the appellate court, the matter reached the high court in revision. The challenger raised grounds of witness bias and non-examination of investigative personnel, while the opposing party highlighted medical correlation to the injuries sustained.

Findings of Court:
Medical evidence regarding the fracture corroborated the ocular accounts of the witnesses. The conviction was deemed sound and free from infirmity. However, considering the elapsed time and the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the court opted to apply provisions regarding the release of the offender on probation of good conduct.

Issues: The primary issues were the legality of the conviction based on the evidence presented and the applicability of the statutory provision for release on probation of good conduct for a first-time offender.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any prior conviction, for an offender over the age of twenty-one, the court is empowered to grant probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. if it is considered expedient, having regard to the nature of the offence and the antecedents of the offender. Failure to consider this beneficial provision without recording reasons constitutes a failure in application of the legislative mandate aiming at rehabilitation.

Result: Criminal revision disposed of; conviction upheld but sentence modified to execution of a bond for probation of good conduct.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and criminal trial findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' contentions regarding evidentiary sufficiency and witness credibility. (Para 5 , 6)
3. evaluation of ocular and medical evidence corroboration. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. application of section 360 crpc for release on probation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final disposition and order of the court. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement dated 11.02.2004 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Appeal No. 27/98|156/01 whereby the judgment dated 28.02.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamtara in G.R. Case No. 539/92 (T.R. No. 95/98) convicting the petitioner under Sections 323 & 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 323 IPC and one year under Section 325 IPC, has been confirmed and the period of detention already undergone by him, has been set off against the sentence awarded to him invoking the provision of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.10.1992 at about 7.00 A.M, Jamuna Hazra (the O.P.No.2) was cleaning the door of his house. At the same time, Hariballabh Das, his sons Nagendra Das (the petitioner herein) & Sunil Das, his wife and daughter, namely, Tara Devi & Meena Devi respectively came there armed with Farsa and Lathi and started abusing him. When the O.P.No.2 protested their said act, Nagendra Das, Hariballab Das and Sunil Das assaulted on the fingers of his left hand due to which his wrist got fractured. The wife as well as the daughter of Hariballab Das assaulted on his back with bricks and stones. They also assaulted his wife. On the basis of the written application given by Jamuna Hazra, the police lodged an F.I.R being Jamtara P.S Case No. 234 of 1992. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 325, 323 and 337/34 IPC. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed the charge under Sections 325, 341, 337 & 323 IPC against all the accused persons. During trial, altogether six witnesses, namely, Doctor R.K. Poddar, Lakhi Narayan Rawani, Ghungru Hari, Jamuna Hazra, Jaya Devi and Arun Marandi were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charges levelled against the accused persons.

3. Learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 28.02.1998, convicted the accused persons, namely, Hariballabh Das, Nagendra Das (the petitioner herein) and Sunil Das under Sections 325 & 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 325 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC whereas accused Tara Devi and Meena Devi were convicted under Sections 337 & 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was further directed that all the sentences would run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the said accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 27/98|156/01 which was disposed of by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara vide judgment dated 11.02.2004 upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner under Sections 325 & 323 IPC and the order of sentence passed against him was set off to the period of detention already undergone in view of the provision laid down under Section 428 Cr.P.C. So far as the other accused persons are concerned, they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the witnesses, except the doctor, who were examined during the trial, are close relatives of the informant and hence the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioner are perverse and illegal. Moreover, the evidence of the defence witness has not been taken into consideration either by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court. The said Courts also ignored the fact