Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Niraj Zhalani vs Pramod Kumar Zhalani on 9 January, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1226 OF 2014
NIRAJ ZHALANI … APPELLANT
Versus
PRAMOD KUMAR ZHALANI & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1231 OF 2014
PRAMOD KUMAR ZHALANI … APPELLANT
Versus
NIRAJ ZHALANI & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. These cross-appeals emanate from the judgment dated
08.05.2012, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
Indore, whereby two cross-appeals have been decided.
2. The facts are briefly noticed from the lead appeal, i.e.,
Criminal Appeal No.1226/2014.
3. The appellant and respondent No.1 are closely related. They
entered into a scuffle on 03.02.2003 and caused injuries to each
other. The appellant was stabbed in stomach by respondent No.1 and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.01.24
17:57:16 IST
had to be hospitalised, whereupon FIR No.62/2003 was registered
Reason:
under Sections 294, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1980 (in
2
short, the “IPC”) at P.S. Manak Chowk, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh.
4. Respondent No.1, too, was injured, and on his complaint,
FIR No.63/2003 was registered against the appellant under Sections
294, 307 and 323 IPC at the same Police Station, i.e., P.S. Manak
Chowk, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh.
5. In both the cases, the chargesheets under Section 307 IPC
and other associated offences were filed. In the first case, i.e,
FIR No.62/2003, the Trial Court held respondent No.1 guilty of
offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three
years’ Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand).
6. In the second case, i.e., FIR No.63/2003, the Trial Court
convicted respondent No.1 (the appellant in the lead appeal), under
Sections 324 and 325 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo three years’
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand).
7. It would, thus, be seen that the appellant and respondent
No.1 both were held guilty, one under Section 307 IPC whereas the
other under Sections 324/325 IPC. However, they were awarded the
same sentence.
8. Both the appellant and respondent No.1, approached the
High Court, and vide the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2012, the
High Court maintained their conviction but has released both of
them on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The
reasons assigned by the High Court for their release on probation
are also similar, namely, that the accused are first time offenders
and are close relatives, being uncle-nephew.
3
9. Both the appellant and respondent No.1 are now in cross-
appeals before us.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the material placed on record.
11. On a query being made by the Court, learned counsel
fairly state that after the unfortunate incident of 03.02.2003,
there is no repeat occurrence and both the sides have no past
criminal antecedents also.
12. On the merits of the lead appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant vehemently urges that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in releasing respondent No.1 on probation in a case of
conviction under Section 307 IPC.
13. Similarly, in the connected appeal, learned counsel for
the appellant (respondent No.1 in the lead appeal) submits that
though the first respondent in that case was convicted under
Sections 324 and 325 IPC, however, having regard to the nature of
injuries, he ought not to have been released on probation.
14. We have bestowed our due consideration to the rival
submissions.
15. Since the parties are now hopefully living peacefully and
there is no recurrence of any violent incident, coupled with the
fact that they do not have any criminal antecedents, we are
satisfied that no case to interfere with the impugned judgment
dated 08.05.2012 is made out.
16. The question as to whether in a case of conviction under
Section 307 IPC, the High Court could invoke its powers to release
the convict on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act,
4
1958, no doubt, is an arguable issue, which will be gone into in an
appropriate case in future. Under the present appeal, this question
of law is kept open.
17. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
................….........J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............………..........J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 09, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1226/2014
NIRAJ ZHALANI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PRAMOD KUMAR ZHALANI & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 1231/2014 (II-A)
Date : 09-01-2025 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Appellant(s) Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR
Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
Mr. Amit Sharma, A.A.G.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.)
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_1]
Source link