[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Heera Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045922
252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1972-2019 (O & M)
Date of decision: 03.04.2025
HEERA LAL
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned
judgment dated 05.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Rewari,, whereby judgment of conviction dated 23.05.2016 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari has been upheld, however, order
of sentence dated 24.05.2016 has been modified by releasing the private
respondents on probation for six months and compensation of Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/- was
imposed upon them and was ordered to be paid to the complainant.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that Surender Singh son of
Sher Singh got recorded his statement before the police that on 18.01.2011 at
about 7:00 PM, he along with his brother Devender was present in his house.
On hearing noise of quarrel, they both came ooutside the house and saw that
private respondents were quarreling with their aunt Dhanpati, who was got
rescued by them. Thereafter, the accused/private respondents started pelting
bricks but they both saved themselves by hiding inside the house. In the
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:36:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045922
CRR-1972-2019
2019 2
meantime,
antime, due to brick blows, Hira Lal (petitioner herein) got injured and fell
on the floor. Hence, the FIR (supra)) was got registered.
3. On assessing all the material available on the record, the learned
trial Court convicted and sentenced the responden
respondents-accused vide judgment
dated 23.05.2016 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2016 for commission of
offences under Sections
Section 323/325/506 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by
the same, the private respondents preferred an appeal before the learned lower
Appellate Court,
Court which was partly allowed and, the
they were released on
probation for a period of six months with the condition that all the convicts
shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/-
Rs. as compensat
compensation to be payable to the
complainant within a period of one week.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial
Court has convicted the private respondents under Sections 323/325/506/34 of
IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years
years, however, the learned
lower Appellate Court fell into error by releasing the private respondents on
probation as the same is based on untenable grounds. The charges against
them stand duly proven by all the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial
Court has rightly convicted the accused persons. A
As such, the learned lower
Appellate Court ought not to have granted the benefit of probation to them.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the
petitioner on the ground that
that the learned lower Appellate Court has passed a
well-reasoned
reasoned order based on correct appreciation of material available on
record. As such, interference of this Court is not warranted.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing
ng the record with their able assistance, it transpires that vide impugned
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:36:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045922
CRR-1972-2019
2019 3
judgment dated 05.12.2018, the learned lower Appellate Court, after taking
into consideration the fact that all the private respondents are not previous
convicts, has rightly granted
granted the respondents, the concession of probation,
while invoking provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
The learned lower Appellate Court has also awarded a compensation of
Rs.10,000/- to the complainant under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act.
Further, the private respondents-accused
accused have maintained good conduct and
do not have criminal antecedents.
7. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in
the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. St
State of Himachal
Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held
as under:-
“6….having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents
against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the
benefit of releasing them
them on probation of good conduct. In that
view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall
be released on probation of good conduct…..”
A two Judge Bench of the Hon’b
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhvir
Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 speaking through Justice Sanjay
Kishan Kaul, has held as under:-
under:
“6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment an
and its
amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on
probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to
imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:36:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045922CRR-1972-2019
2019 4rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self
self-reliant members of
society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail
society
life is what is sought to be subserved.”
Further still, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100
has opined as follows:
“15. We find that the attention of the Court was not drawn
to sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section
360 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar
laws for the time being in force for the tre
treatment, training or
rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Section 4 of the
1958 Act has a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect over
any other provisions of law.
16. The conjoint reading
eading of the provisions of both the
statutes, we find that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code
are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children
Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the
treatment, training or rehabilitation
rehabilitation of youthful offenders”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of
West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 has laid down that it is obligatory on the part of
the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the
Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or
imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is not a previous convict. The
overarching object of the provision contained in Section 4 and 6 of the Act and
Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time
offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the harde
hardened and
habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody.
9. However, the plight of the petitioner/injured and the loss suffered
by him cannot be overlooked. Significantly, the injured had suffered injuries
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:36:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045922
CRR-1972-2019
2019 5
substantial enough to attract offences punishable under Sections
323/325/506/34 of IPC. The injured has as much of a right to a free, fair and
speedy trial, as does an accused. Keeping the same in mind, the legislature, in
its wisdom, has provided for a compensatory
compensatory mechanism in the form of
Section 5 of the Act, which is reproduced below:
Section 5. Power of court to require released offenders to
pay compensation and costs.– —
(1) The court directing the release of an offender under
section 3 or section 4, may,
ay, if it thinks fit, make at the same
time a further order directing him to pay
pay–
(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for
loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of
the offence; and
(b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks
reasonable.
(2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub sub-section (1)
may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the
provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code.
(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same
matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into
account any amount paid or recovered as compensation
under sub-section
section (1) in awarding damages.
To balance the rights of the injured/petitioner with the benefit of
probation extended to the accused/private
accused/ respondents
spondents, this Court deems it
expedient to direct the accused/private
accused/private respondents to pay total compensation
of Rs.25,000/- to injured-Heera
Heera Lal (petitioner herein) within one month.
While compensation can never fully redress
redress the suffering endured by the
injured,, it is a step toward acknowledging the hardship faced by him, with an
aim to meaningfully contribute towards his rehabilitation.
10. In view of the above, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in
findings recorded by learned lower Appellat
Appellate Court, which warrants
interference. As such, the judgment dated 05.12.2018 passed by learned
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:36:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045922
CRR-1972-2019
2019 6
Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari is upheld and a compensation of
Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the injured as well.
11. Dismissed accordingly.
12. Pending miscellaneous
miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
(HARPREET
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
BRAR)
April 03, 2025 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2025 00:36:57 :::
[ad_2]
Source link