Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Jaan Mohammad & others - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 2007
Decided On : 10-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and the application of probation for first-time offenders under the Probation of Offenders Act.

Headnote:
Probation - Criminal Conviction - Cr.P.C. 1973, IPC Sections 147, 452, 323, 149, Probation of Offenders Act 1958 - The court upheld the conviction but granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment for first-time offenders.
Fact of the Case:
The informant reported an assault on his wife by several individuals, including the appellants, leading to their conviction for various offenses under IPC, while some charges were dropped.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence reliable and upheld the trial court's conviction, but considered the appellants' circumstances for probation.
Issues: Whether the appellants could be granted probation despite their conviction under IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the nature of the offenses and the character of the offenders warranted the application of probation provisions.
Result: The appeal is partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence modified to probation.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

1. This appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to be referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 28/29.09.2007 passed by learned A.D.J./F.T.C. II, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.47 of 2005 State vs. Jaan Mohamad and others whereby the said court, at the end of trial has convicted the accused/appellants under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellants were further convicted under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.300 each alongwith default stipulation. The appellants were held guilty under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.100 each alongwith default stipulation. All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. It needs to be mentioned that accused persons were acquitted for the charges of offence under Sections 307/149, 148 and 324/149 I.P.C.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. During the pendency of appeal appellant no.1-Jaan Mohammad and appellant no.5-Hasmat had died due to which the appeal stood abated against those appellants vide order dated 11.01.2021. The appeal is now being heard on behalf of appellant no.2-Alladeen, appellant no.3-Sabrati, appellant no.4-Imran and appellant no.6-Raasu.

4. In brief the facts of the case are that P.W.1 informant Salim lodged a First Information Report with Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun with the averments that on 20.09.2004 he alongwith his uncle’s son Walideen were coming back home and at about 04:00 as soon as they reached, they saw that people of their village, namely, Jaan Mohammad, Alladeen, Hasmat Ali, Sabrati, Raasu, Imran and Riju all sons of Jaan Mohammad alongwith several ladies of his house were assaulting the wife of informant, namely, Jamila by dragging her out from the house. When the informant tried to save his wife these people began to assault him also. Accused Raasu was armed with an axe, Aslam Ali and Alladeen were holding iron rods whereas remaining were having sticks in their hands. Thereafter all these people began severely beating the informant and his wife. On hearing the noise brother of informant came to save them who was also severely beaten by the people. The incident was witnessed by Beer Singh, Tahir and several other people assembled at the spot. On the basis of this information the case was registered and Chik FIR Ka-6 was prepared.

5. The charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons on 27.06.2005. The charge under Sections 146, 307/149, 324/149 and 452 of IPC was framed against the accused persons which they denied and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial accused-Riju (Rizwan) passed away hence the trial stood abated against him. As many as eight witnesses were examined by prosecution in support of its case, who were namely, Saleem, Gudda, Jameela, Tahir, Beer Singh, Walideen, Head Constable Anil Kumar and Dr. D.P. Joshi. Thereafter the statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that the report was falsely lodged against them. They were implicated in the matter due to previous incident. On completion of trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

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

8. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herei