Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surendra Singh-I, J.
Phool Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. -1817 of 1995
Decided On : 21-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajay Singh, Nisha Singh Parihar, R. P. Singh Parihar

Point of Law - Accident took place in a fit of anger - All parties educated and also distantly related - Incident is not such as to direct the accused to undergo sentence of imprisonment - In Court opinion, it is a fit case in which accused should be released on probation by directing them to execute a bond of one year for good behaviour.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 395, 411 and 412 - Arms Act – 25 - Offence of Dacoity – Dishonestly receiving stolen property – Charged - Probation - Accused along with two or three other persons entered in the house of informant, Murlidhar through a wooden ladder - Due to noise of knocking, informant, awoke and saw that about 5 or 6 persons including the above accused were carrying household material after committing the theft - Informant raised alarm then his neighbours , and came on spot, who saw the accused carrying the household materials - Witnesses chased them but the accused could not be apprehended - Accused committed theft of clothes which were being sold by the informant. Later on, informant prepared a written report and went to the police station, where he lodged F.I.R. at 9.30 a.m.
Finding of Court : These statutory provisions very emphatically lay down reformatory and correctional object of sentencing and obligates trial court as well as appellate courts to give benefit of probation in fit cases as provided under law - Branch of law has not been much utilized by courts - It becomes more relevant and important in our system of administration of justice where trial is often concluded after a long time and by time decision assumes finality, very purpose of sentencing looses its efficacy as with passage of time penological and social priorities change and there remains no need to inflict punishment of imprisonment, particularly when offence involved is not serious and there is no criminal antecedent of accused persons - Considering facts and circumstances of present case as well as keeping in view position of law as mentioned above and considering that incident had taken place about 35 years back and considering provisions of Section 4 & 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 it appears justified that appellants accused be released under Section 4 (1) of Act on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount - During this period, he shall maintain good conduct and keep peace and on breach of this condition, he shall appear before Court to receive punishment.
Result : Criminal appeal is partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri R.P. Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been instituted against the judgement and order dated 20.10.1995 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 508 of 1990, State Vs. Deshraj Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 1988 u/s 395/397/412 and connected Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1995, State Vs. Phool Chandra, arising out of Case Crime No. 94 of 1988 under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S.-Jafarganj, District-Fatehpur. The trial court convicted and sentenced co-accused Deshraj Singh Thakur, Shiv Kumar Yadav and Lakhan Lal under Section 380 IPC. They were acquitted from the charge under Section 395 IPC. The trial court convicted appellant accused Phool Chandra under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him two years rigorous imprisonment. The trial court acquitted Phool Chandra from the charge under Sections 395 and 412 IPC. The trial court also acquitted appellant accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act. There is no criminal appeal filed by the State or informant against acquittal of appellant-accused u/s 395 IPC and 25 Arms Act. Thus, the trial court’s order acquitting the accused u/s 395 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act has become final.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that in the night of 15/16.12.1998, accused Deshraj Singh, Thakur, Shiv Kumar Yadav and Lakhanlal Lohar along with two or three other persons entered in the house of informant, Murlidhar through a wooden ladder. Due to the noise of knocking, the informant, Murlidhar awoke and saw that about 5 or 6 persons including the above accused were carrying household material after committing the theft. The informant raised alarm then his neighbours, Rajwa, Banshi and Faujilal came on the spot, who saw the accused carrying the household materials. The witnesses chased them but the accused could not be apprehended. The accused committed theft of the clothes which were being sold by the informant. Later on, the informant prepared a written report and went to the police station on 16.12.1988, where he lodged the F.I.R. at 9.30 a.m. The case was registered as Case Crime No. 91 of 1988 u/s 457/380 I.P.C. and investigation was started.

4. On 26.12.1988, Station Officer, S.I. Sukhvinder Singh along with some constables was returning to the police station after taking a round of the area. When the police party reached at the curve of Lalpur, they saw a person. When the police party asked him, then he turned backside. Suspecting the miscreant, the police surrounded and apprehended him. On enquiry, he told his name, Phool Chandra and a search was made. Then one country-made pistol, along with two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. He was having a bag in which two cotton sarees, two quilt cover and one piece of cloth were recovered. During interrogation, the accused admitted that he was also amongst the dacoits who committed dacoity at the house of Murlidhar in the night of 15.12.1988. The recovered material was kept under separate sealed cover. The recovery memo was prepared and the accused was also kept Bapurdah. The recovered material and the accused were brought at the police station where the recovered material was deposited in the Malkhana and the accused was kept in the lock up. The F.I.R. was lodged and a case was registered against accused, Phool Chandra under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Crime No. 94/88. The investigation of this case was also started with Crime No. 91 of 1988. During investigation, identification of the recovered looted property was conducted. During the investigation, the case was converted into u/s 395/397 and 412 I.P.C. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 01.03.1989 u/s 395/397/412 I.P.C. against all the accused. A separate charge-sheet u/s 25 of Arms Act against accused, Phool Chandra was also submitted on 19.2.1989. During investigation, the accused were arrested.