Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 2134
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sham Sunder, J.
Bhup Singh
Versus
Khushal Singh
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28749 of 2009,
Criminal Revision No. 1510 of 2009,
Decided On : DECEMBER 9, 2009
The injured were entitled to compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite the accused being released on probation of good conduct.
Headnote:
Compensation - Criminal Offences - Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 447, 506 - The court found that the accused caused injuries to the complainant and his brother and released the accused on probation of good conduct. The revision petition was filed for enhancement of sentence and grant of compensation. The court, after considering the evidence, directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 to each of the injured.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant and his family were attacked by the accused, resulting in injuries. The trial court convicted the accused but released them on probation of good conduct. The appeal against this decision was dismissed, leading to the filing of a revision petition for enhancement of sentence and grant of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were liable to pay compensation to the injured despite being released on probation of good conduct.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of compensation to the injured despite the accused being released on probation of good conduct, and the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injured were entitled to compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, even though the accused were released on probation of good conduct. The court also condoned the delay in filing the revision petition due to a bona fide mistake by the complainant.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partly accepted, and the accused were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 to each of the injured within a stipulated period.
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed for enhancement of sentence and grant of compensation, against the judgment dated 03.12.2008, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Sirsa. vide which he dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2005 and the order dated 29.03.2005. releasing the accused/respondents on probation of good conduct.
2. On 25.08.1995 at about 2/3 PM, the complainant alongwith his father Hangtu, brother Sheo Bhagwan and one Sohan Lal son of Shankar Lal, was watering the fields, while Sheo Lal son of Pat Ram, his maternal uncle was sitting at the tubcwell. In the meanwhile, all the accused (now respondents) armed with lathies and Kassias, reached there. They caused grievous as well as simple injuries on the person of Bhup Singh, complainant, and Sheo Bhagwan, his brother. When lalkara was raised, Sheo Lal and Sohan Lal were attracted to the spot, as a result whereof, the accused decamped from the spot, with their respective weapons. After the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Nathusari Chopta. in a jeep, they were rnedico-legally examined. Bhup Singh, complainant suffered fracture of his left leg. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. Ultimately, a criminal complaint was filed.
3. Preliminary evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for the offences, punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they were summoned.
4. During the pendency of the trial, Rajesh, one of the accused, died on 29.05.1998.
5. In pre-charge. evidence, the complainant himself appeared as PW-1 and examined Sheo Bhagwan. as PW2, Sheo Lal. as PW-3, Mangtu as PW-4 and Dr. M.C. Jaini, as PW-5. Thereafter, the trial Court found that a prima-facie case was made out. against the accused. Charge for the offences, punishable under Sections 323. 324. 447 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused.
6. After framing the charge, the witnesses were further cross-examined.
7. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and. on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the trial Court convicted and released the accused on probation of good conduct, as stated above.
9. feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the appellant/complainant, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.12.2008, by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Past Track Court), Sirsa.
10. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision-petition has been filed, by the complainant/revision-petitioner.
11. Alongwith the revision-petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1401 days, in filing the revision petition, was filed by the revision-petitioner, on the allegations, that against the judgment of conviction and the order, releasing the accused, on probation, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, an appeal was filed, in the Court of Sessions, within the period of limitation, under bona-fide mistake, which was, otherwise, not maintainable. The appeal remained pending, in the Appellate Court. Ultimately, the same was decided on 03.12.2008 holding that the same was not maintainable. It was also stated that, on account of this reason, delay in filing the instant revision- petition, occurred.
12. In reply to the application, it was stated that the complainant was assisted by Mr. A.N. Jain. Advocate, retired District Attorney, having practice of more than 40 years, on the criminal side only. It was further staled that, under these circumstances, it could not be said that on account of bo
