Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Rajiv Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Ors. - Respondent
CRR-979-2014 (O & M)
Decided On : 27-03-2015
Probation - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 323, Section 325, Section 34, Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 360, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4(1)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused had caused injuries to the complainant. The trial court convicted the accused, while the appellate court released the accused on probation and directed him to pay compensation to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused, being a first-time offender without any previous convictions or anti-social activities, was eligible for the benefit of probation under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused, who had caused injuries to the complainant, was eligible for probation despite being convicted by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the benefit of probation could be extended to first-time offenders convicted of offenses not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court emphasized the objective of criminal law to reform the individual offender rather than just punish them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, upholding the decision of the appellate court to release the accused on probation and pay compensation to the complainant.
CRM-10147-2015
1. Allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P-2 and P-3 are taken on record.
CRR-979-2014
2. Challenge in the present criminal revision is to the judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby respondent No. 2-Manish has been released on probation and order on sentence passed by the trial Court has been set aside to this extent.
3. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of instant revision are to the effect that on 14.02.2009, a tempo ran over a dog. The dead body of the dog was lying in front of the house of complainant-Rajiv Kumar. At about 10:00 a.m., he picked up and threw the dead body in the open ground of the school. Manish Sharma, Titu, Tannu and Manish's father started abusing him stating as to why the dead body had been thrown there. When the complainant stated that he had put the dead body in the open space, Manish Sharma gave a fist blow on his face. This was followed by a fist blow on his face by Tannu. Manish brought a hockey stick and struck on his back. Titu and Manish's father gave him kick blows. He raised alarm which attracted several persons from the neighbourhood. They rescued him. His elder brother Hemant Kumar took him to General Hospital, Rewari from where an information was given to the police. The statement of complainant was recorded. After receipt of the radio-logical examination, formal FIR was registered. Investigation was set into motion. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.
4. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed by the trial Court, to which the accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined complainant-Rajiv Kumar as PW 1, Dr. J.K. Saini as PW 2, SI Dhanpat Singh as PW 3, Hemant Kumar as PW 4, Chander Kanta as PW 5, EHC Virender Singh as PW 6, Ramphool, the then Sub Inspector as PW 7 and Dr. Anil Yadav, Dental Surgeon as PW 8.
6. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in their defence.
7. The trial Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2012, convicted accused-Manish and Prag for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 23.04.2012, accused-Prag has been released on probation and accused-Manish has been sentenced as under:
8. Against that, respondent No. 2-Manish preferred appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Rewari, who upheld the judgment of conviction, however, set aside the order on sentence and released respondent No. 2-Manish on probation and respondent No. 2 has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant-injured. Hence, this revision.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court has rightly convicted respondent No. 2 and sentenced him accordingly for causing injuries. The injuries inflicted on the person of the complainant are supported with the medical evidence. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No. 2-accused had caused injuries to complainant with hockey, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of probation.
11. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment.
12. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
13. It is pertinent to mention that since respondent No. 2 has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment, therefore, the judgment of conviction has attained finali
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
