Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1256 of 1997 Revisionist :- Sri Pal Singh & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- V.Gupta,Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauh,Sukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.09.1997 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17/1995 (Sri Pal Singh and another Vs. State) by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etawah, by which conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in Case No. 903 of 1992 was affirmed, by which revisionists were held guilty under section 332 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, each and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine, ten days additional imprisonment).
Facts giving rise to this criminal revision, in brief, are that the complainant/Constable Ramveer Singh submitted a written report before the police station concerned that on 09.01.1984, he and Constable Ramautar were doing their duties at the fair. When, they reached at the shop of Dr. Ramashankar, situated at Achhalda Road, they received information that some people are beating a businessman by kicks, LAATHI and DANDA. On the aforesaid information, they reached at the place of occurrence and saw that accused Shri Pal, Mahesh, Sarnam and Rajveer were brutally beating a businessman. When, they tried to catch the accused persons, accused Shri Pal Singh exhorted and attacked on the head of complainant by LAATHI. In this incident, several injuries were received to complainant and his companion, Constable Ramautar. The incident was seen by witnesses Babu Singh, Parasuram and Munna.
On the basis of aforesaid written report of the complainant, case crime no. 5/1984, under sections 332, 353, 504 IPC was registered in police station Achhalda, District Etawah and entry of the case was made in the general diary of the police station. Investigation was taken up. Statement of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and map of spot was prepared. After completing investigation, charge sheet under sections 332, 353, 504 I.P.C. was submitted by the Investigating Officer against all the accused persons.
Charges under section 332 IPC was framed by the trial court against the accused persons. The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed for trial.
PW-1 Constable Ramveer Singh (complainant), PW-2 Constable Ram Autar Singh (complainant), PW-3 Head Constable Irfam Ahmad, PW-4 Dr. Shiv Kripal Singh, PW-5 Parasuram and PW-6 S.I. Ganpat Singh were examined. Statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial court, in which the accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity with Jagdish Yadav, who is residing in front of police station concerned. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused persons.
After giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, judgment and order dated 26.05.1995 was passed by the learned trial court in Criminal Case No. 903/1992, by which accused Mahesh and Rajveer were acquitted from the charge of section 332 IPC and accused Sri Pal and Sarnam Singh were convicted under section 332 IPC and sentenced as stated above.
Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.05.1995, Criminal Appeal No. 17/1995 was preferred by Sripal and Sarnam Singh who were convicted by the trial court. Aforesaid criminal appeal was decided vide order dated 24.09.1997 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etawah, by which appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the revisionists-accused Sri Pal Singh and Sarnam Singh was confirmed. It is this impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.1997 passed by the lower appellate court, which is under challenge to this criminal revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has not argued on the point of conviction recorded against the revisionists. He has advanced his submissions only on the point of sentence imposed against the revisionists. He submitted that protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. He further submitted that the revisionist no. 1 Sri Pal Singh is aged about 58 years and revisionist no. 2 Sarnam Singh is aged about 61 years, they are poor persons having occupation of agriculture and there is no previous criminal history of the revisionists, hence the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should have been provided to the revisionists, by the learned trial court and learned appellate court, but both the courts below have committed fault by refusing the benefit of probation to the revisionists, hence the criminal revision should be allowed. Learned AGA has opposed for granting probation to the revisionists, but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts, as submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is force in the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists. No useful purpose will be served, if the revisionists/accused are sent to jail after 36 years from the date of occurrence. It appears to be just and appropriate that the revisionists/accused may be extended the benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Hence, this criminal revision is liable to be partly allowed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed. Conviction order passed by learned lower appellate court and trial court against the revisionists is hereby confirmed. The order of sentence passed by learned trial court and learned lower appellate court against the revisionists are hereby set aside. Let the revisionists/accused be released under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing two sureties and personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial court for a period of six months, with condition that they will maintain peace and good conduct. If they violate the conditions of probation and called upon by the learned trial court, they will have to appear there and learned trial court will pass fresh order of sentence against the revisionists/accused, after affording opportunity of hearing to them.
The revisionists/accused is directed to appear before the trial court on 05.02.2019.
Let a copy of this judgment and record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 SR