Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Yadav vs Ekta @ Teena on 6 December, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34823
1 CRR-1141-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1141 of 2017
PAWAN YADAV
Versus
EKTA @ TEENA
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat - advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
None for the respondent even after service of notice.
ORDER
This criminal revision is preferred under section 397 of Cr.P.C. by
the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 23.08.2017, passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions
Judge, District-Indore in Cr.A. No.282/2017, wherein the appeal filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of conviction and
sentence of the petitioner under Section 31 of Protection of Woman from
Domestic Violence Act for three months S.I. passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, District Indore in Criminal Case No.9794/2014
vide order dated 04.04.2017 has been affirmed, hence, the present
petition before this Court.
2. The petitioner have preferred this criminal revision on several
grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34823
2 CRR-1141-2017
petitioner did not press this revision petition on merits and has not
assailed the finding part of judgment. He confined his argument on the
point of sentence only. Counsel further submitted that the appellant is an
educated person of young age of 38 years and he has already complied with
the directions of the Court and divorce has already been taken place between
the parties and apart that respondent has already got married with another
person, hence he prays that benefit be granted under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act 1958, (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act,
1958‘) so that his carrier may not be adversely effected. Counsel placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajbir vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1278) so also the order passed by
this Court in the case of Narottam vs. State of M.P. (1995(1) MPWN 238)
and Rahamatullah and others Vs. State of Madhya Prades, passed in CRA
No. 751/2004 ( order dated 18.7.2024).
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner deserves some leniency
as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2013 i.e. for a
period of almost 11 years and hence the petitioner be granted the benefit
under Section 4 of ‘The Act, 1958‘. Learned counsel also contended that
since both the Courts below have convicted the petitioner under section
31 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner
aged about 38 years and he has already complied with the directions of the
Court and divorce has already been taken place between the parties and apart
that respondent has already got married with another person, hence, the
petitioner prays that , petitioner should be given the benefit of ‘The Act,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34823
3 CRR-1141-2017
1958′.
4. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have
perused the record.
5. Nevertheless, the petitioner has not impugned the merits of
conviction and confined his arguments only on the point of sentence of
the petitioner, the finding of conviction has been examined by this Court
and it is found that learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court has properly appreciated the evidence and after proper
appreciation convicted the appellant under Section 31 of Protection of
Woman from Domestic Violence Act..
6. Now coming to the point of sentencing, the petitioner has
requested that since he is young age educated person and having no
criminal antecedents, any type of punishment would effect his service
career. He has already faced the trial for more than 11 years in this case,
hence it should be appropriate to give him the benefit of ‘The Act, 1958‘.
He is already complying with the order of learned trial Court. In this
regard, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that petitioner is
entitled to give the benefit of Section 4, 5, 12 of ‘The Act, 1958‘. Before
dwelling upon the request of the petitioner, it is worth to quote here
under Section 4, 5 and 12 of ‘The Act, 1958‘:
Section 4:Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation
of good conduct:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34823
4 CRR-1141-2017
(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an
offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the
Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that,
having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature
of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to
release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the
Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment
direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or
without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon
during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may
direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good
behaviour:
Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender
unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a
fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which
the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely
to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2)Before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall
take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer
concerned in relation to the case.
(3)When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if
it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the
public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order
directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a
probation officer named in the order during such period, not being
less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such
supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary
for the due supervision of the offender.
(4)The Court making a supervision order under subsection (3)
shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a
bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified
in such order and such additional conditions with respect to
residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the
Court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider
fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a
commission of other offences by the offender.
(5)The Court making a supervision order under subsection (3)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:348235 CRR-1141-2017
shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order
and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to
each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer
concerned.”
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, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further
order directing him to 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- 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 (1)
in awarding damages.
Section 12 Removal of disqualification attaching to Conviction
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person
found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of
section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any,
attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided
that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his
release under section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original
offence.”
7. On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote the excerpt of
the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir vs.
State (Supra) which reads as under:-
“4. From the judgment of the High
Court it appears that though the
sentence imposed for the offence
Under Section 323 of the Code
was six months, the appellant and
the co-accused had already
suffered over one year’sSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:348236 CRR-1141-2017
imprisonment. Ordinarily, in a
situation as here, there would be
no need to interfere. Learned
counsel for the appellant has,
however, pressed the appeal as the
appellant is in Government service
and if the conviction and sentence
are maintained, he would lose his
service. Both the parties to the
assault were close relations. There
is no material on the record to
indicate that the appellant had any
previous conviction. In the absence
of such evidence, we treat the
appellant as a first offender. He is
entitled to be admitted to the
benefits of probation Under
Section 3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, taking into
consideration the circumstances of
the case, the nature of the offence
and the character of the appellant.
While maintaining his conviction
we direct that he shall be released
on probation of good conduct
Under Section 4 of the Act. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhiwani, before whom the
appellant is directed to appear
within four weeks from today shall
release him after due admonition.
We do not consider it necessary to
direct him to enter into a bond in
the facts of the case.
5. We are of the view that in the
peculiar facts of the case, the
conviction should not affect his
service. ”
8. Similarly, in the case of Narottam vs. State (Supra) the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court while granting the benefit of Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act to the applicant has held as under:
“Reliance was placed on the case
of Rajbir vs. State of Haryana
reported in AIR 1985 SC 1278. In
that case it was held that on facts
when the accused was in
Government service, the probationSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:348237 CRR-1141-2017
could be granted u/s.4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act so that
his service is not adversely
effected.
The facts of this case are similar.
Both the petitioners are in
Government service. There is no
criminal history against them.
Therefore, they are entitled to be
released on probation instead of
being sentenced to any
imprisonment as fine.”
9. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court and by this Court since the petitioner is young age educated
person, and he has been convicted for offence under Section 31 of
Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, it would be
appropriate that petitioner should be given the benefit of Section 4, 5 &
12 of ‘The Act, 1958‘. He has no criminal antecedents, he has already
faced trial for 11 years therefore, it would be appropriate that petitioner
should be given the benefit of Section 4, 5 and 12 of ‘The Act, 1958‘.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Rajbir vs. State (Supra) and Narottam vs. State (Supra) the
petitioner may be liable for only compensation of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 5 of ‘The Act, 1958‘ instead of imposing fine amount upon him
and it would also be appropriate that he should also be given the benefit
of Section 12 of ‘The Act, 1958‘. Consequently, the petition is partly
allowed.
10. In the upshot of the aforesaid analysis of law and deliberation
in entirety, it would be condign to release the petitioner under theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34823
8 CRR-1141-2017
provisions of Sections 5 & 12 of ‘The Act, 1958‘ by imposing
compensation of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner
in favour of the respondent Akta @ Teena as additional compensation. If
he fails to deposit the compensation within two months and complying
with the order of trial Court, he will suffer further further incarceration of
one Month S.I. In the result thereof, it is directed that conviction of
petitioner will not affect his profession and future career in any manner.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Courts below for
necessary compliance.
12. Pending application, if any shall be closed.
13. With the aforesaid, the present revision stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
