IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment, allowing probation for first-time offenders under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat in Sessions Trial No.14 of 2003, whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

However, the accused appellant was acquitted for the offence under Sections 324 & 506 IPC by the trial court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that on 30.04.2003 at around 10:30 p.m. some drunkards were creating nuisance near a tourist guest house in Lohaghat. To this, informant’s son, namely, Gopal Singh asked them not to make noise from outside his house. On hearing this, Jagdish Chandra Joshi (appellant herein) and some of his other companions came towards into the courtyard and attacked on the head of the informant’s son with a hammer, due to which, he became unconscious; fell on the ground and was soaked in blood. Since there was no man in the house, the informant’s son could not be taken to the hospital till morning and in the morning he was given primary healthcare. Thereafter, the accused persons threatened the wife of the informant and his daughter-in-law for dire consequences.

4. On the basis of aforesaid report, the case was registered at the Police Station and the investigation of the case was started. The Investigating Officer during course of investigation recorded the statements of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence; prepared the site plan and on being satisfied, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons in the court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 308, 324 & 506 IPC were framed against the accused, which the accused denied and claimed trial.

5. As many as ten witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant. They are PW1 Mohan Singh Mehra (informant), PW2-Gopal Singh Mehra, PW3- Ram Singh Mehta, PW4-Dr. Abhay Goyal, PW5-Smt. Devki Devi, PW6-Smt. Malti Devi, PW7-Constable Girish Chandra, PW8-A.S.I. Vraj Mohan Upreti, PW9-S.O. Vipin Chandra Pant and PW10-S.O. Rajan Lal Arya.

6. After prosecution evidence, the statements of accused-appellant and other co-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and arguments were heard after giving opportunity to present the defence evidence. On completion of trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused person as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgment.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire documents available on record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant having argued extensively finally submitted before this Court that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is based on the evidence which is not reliable due to several contradictions and developments during trial. He also argued and submitted alternately that if this Court is not convinced on the arguments advanced by him, the appellant may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’).

9. To this submission learned State counsel has no serious objection and he also admitted that the appellant can be extended the benefit of first offenders act.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is approaching 60 years of age; it was his first offence; he has no criminal antecedent; he belongs to the poor strata of society and also has liability of his children; and he is suffering from various age related ailments. Appellant also suffered trauma of litigation for a long period of 21 years.

11. Learned State Counsel also stated before this Court that he has not received any report regarding any