The court has the discretion to release offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them immediately, considering factors such as age, nature of the offense, and absence of adverse conduct or antecedents.

JUDGMENT :

Instant revision is preferred against the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 17.07.2008, passed in Criminal Case No. 523 of 2007, “Sunder Singh vs. Rajendra Singh and Others”, by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionists have been convicted under Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC and sentenced as follows:-

(a) Under Section 323 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment.

(b) Under Section 452 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/-, each.

(c) Under Section 506 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment.

It has further been stipulated that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The Court has also directed that, in case of default of fine, the revisionist shall undergo one month further imprisonment and;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 19.05.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2008, “Rajendra Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another”, by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the conviction and sentence of the revisionists, as recorded in the case, has been upheld.

2. Instant revision was admitted on 25.05.2011. The respondent no.2, is reported to have died.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that revisionist no.2 is 68 years of age and revisionist no.3 is 75 years of age. It was a little dispute between two neighbours, which has erupted to that extent. Therefore, it is argued that no purpose would be served if the revisionists are now sent to jail. Instead, it is argued that the revisionists may be released on probation of good conduct.

4. In fact, this aspect was raised on 13.09.2022, when this Court requested learned State counsel to get instruction on this point, so as to assist the Court on the question of sentence, as was argued on that date on behalf of the revisionists.

5. The case is based on a complaint, filed by the respondent on.2, who has died now. According to him, on 20.09.2001, at about 10:30, in the morning on a small issue, the revisionists attacked him, due to which, he sustained injuries.

6. Admittedly, the parties are neighbours. The revisionists were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) on 19.11.2007. On that day, revisionist no.2 - Dayal Singh had revealed his age as fifty years and revisionist no.3 - Bhur Singh revealed his age as sixty years. They both are, in fact, aged persons.

7. Learned State counsel would submit that nothing adverse has come to notice with regard to the conduct and antecedents of the revisionists.

8. Having considered the nature of the offence and the proposition of the offender and other relevant factors, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served if instead of sentencing the revisionists at once, the revisionists are released on probation of good conduct. To that extent, the Revision may be partly allowed.

9. The conviction of the revisionists under Sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC is upheld.

10. The revisionists shall not be sentenced at once. Let the revisionists be released on their entering bonds with one surety to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of six months from today, and, in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

11. The revision is partly allowed accordingly.