Rakesh vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3204

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Rakesh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S NO. 2288-SB of 2008 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellants in CRA-S-2288-SB of 2008.
Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Sheoran, Advocate; For the Petitioner in CRR-2444 of 2009.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, AAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325/34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 360 - Conviction for assault - Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC with sentences upheld but modified to probation due to their clean antecedents and the lengthy trial. (Paras 2, 8, 19, and 20)

(B) Probation - Benefit under Section 360 - The court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentences, granting probation due to the nature of offences not involving moral turpitude and positive reformation of the appellants. (Paras 19 and 20)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for assault occurring 22 years prior, maintaining no subsequent criminal involvement. Applications were made for modifications to sentencing. (Paras 3, 6, and 15)

Findings of Court:
Conviction upheld but sentences were set aside, granting probation, reflecting the court's view on reformatory justice. (Paras 19 and 20)

Issues: Whether the appellants deserved leniency under probation provisions given their criminal history, nature of offences, and lengthy trial. (Paras 19 and 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the value of rehabilitation over punishment for first-time offenders with clean records, aligning with the principles of the reformatory theory. (Paras 19 and 20)

Result: Conviction upheld, sentences set aside; appellants granted probation for two years.

Table of Content
1. overview of case facts and convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments for probation and lack of prior offenses. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's observations on trial findings and behavior of appellants. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15)
4. reformative justice principles outlined. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. conclusion on probation, compensation, and case dismissal. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

This judgment shall dispose of CRA-S-2288-SB-2008 (O&M) and CRR-2444-2009, as they both are interconnected matters and are arising out of the same judgment of conviction dated 12.11.2008 and order of sentence dated 15.11.2008. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CRA-S-2288-SB-2008.

2. Appellants - Rakesh, Joginder alias Kalu and Rampal, have filed present appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 12.11.2008 and order of sentence dated 15.11.2008, passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani, in Sessions Case No.29 of 22.05.2008, Sessions Trial No. 89 of 21.05.2008, arising out of FIR No.206, dated 27.08.2001, under Sections 323 , 325/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Dadri, and Sessions Case No.28 of 22.05.2008, Sessions Trial No.880 of 21.05.2008, arising out of Criminal Complaint filed under Sections 325 /307/397/120-B of IPC and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT .

3. Accused-appellants were held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 , 325/34 of IPC, and were ordered to undergo sentence(s), as detailed in the following table:

Name of Convict(s)	Under Section	Sentence	Fine	In Default
Rakesh, Joginder alias Kalu, Rampal	323 IPC	06 months RI	Rs. 500/- each
Rakesh, Joginder alias Kalu, Rampal	325 r/w 34 IPC	03 years RI	Rs. 5,000/- each	01 month SI (each)

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the period of detention already undergone by the accused-appellants, if any, was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence.

4. By recording finding of acquittal for offence under Sections 397 , 307 of IPC and Section 25 -54-59 of the ARMS ACT , the appellants were convicted for offences under Section 323 , 325/34 of IPC.

5. In CRR-2444-2019, petitioner prayed for modification of judgment of conviction dated 12.11.2008 and order of sentence dated 15.11.2008, to the extent of convicting all the accused-respondents under Sections 323 , 325, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

6. While addressing arguments on behalf the appellants, learned counsel submits that except the present case, the appellants are not involved in any other criminal case till date. More importantly, incident took place around more than 22 years back, and thereafter, during the pendency of the present appeal also, appellants were never got involved in any other criminal case.

7. Even, learned State counsel informs the Court that there is no other criminal case against the appellants, therefore, nothing against their credentials is found.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that he has the instructions to not to challenge the conviction as held by the Ld. Trial Court, however, he prays for grant of the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C., 1973 or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the appellants. He relies upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Arjan Dass and others v. State of Hrayana and another, 2017(1) Law Herald 795 (Law Finder Doc Id # 838932), and refers para Nos. 17 & 18 of the said judgment. Para Nos. 17 & 18 are reproduced herein-below:-

"17. As regards the question of sentence, it may be mentioned here that the appellants are facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about twenty two years. While being heard on the quantum of sentence as required under Section 235 Cr.P.C., 1973 the appellants had stated that they were first offenders; they belonged to one family; and, having minor children to sup