HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 4935 of 2019
Revisionist :- Raghubir Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan,Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for State and perused the record.
The revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.9.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2019 (Raghubir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), under sections 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah arising out of judgment and order dated 29.6.2019 passed by A.C.J.M./Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah in Case Crime No.218 of 2010, Criminal Case No.2059 of 2010 (State Vs. Data Ram and others), under sections 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah.
Learned counsel for revisionist contends that respondent nos.2 to 5 committed marpeet on 3.4.2010 on account of old enmity and caused injuries to as many as six persons; that learned Trial Court though convicted accused-persons for the offences under sections 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC, but instead of sentencing them, released them on probation for a period of one year by giving benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act; that feeling aggrieved against the order of sentence releasing the convicts on probation dated 29.6.2019, revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2019, while against conviction accused-persons filed Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2019 before the Sessions Judge, Etawah; that learned Sessions Judge, Etawah disposed of two appeals together vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.9.2019 dismissing both appeals and affirming the impugned judgment and order of conviction as well as sentence of release on probation dated 29.6.2019 passed by A.C.J.M./Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah; that it was proved from the evidence on record that accused-persons had long criminal history and learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court without taking into consideration their criminal history, granted benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to accused-persons, to which they were not entitled; that in the instant case four accused-persons caused multiple injuries to as many as six persons; that in the circumstances, the order of releasing accused-persons on probation is liable to be set aside and respondent nos.2 to 5 are liable to be sentenced with maximum sentence provided under sections 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC.
Learned counsel for revisionist has paid reliance on a decision of Apex Court in the Case of Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2005) 5 SCC 82, wherein benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act was denied to convict in a matter of offence under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and also paid reliance on another decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Sri Chand (2015) 11 SCC 229, wherein the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act was denied to accused, who was held guilty for the offence of section 354 IPC.
Per contra, learned AGA submits that revision against the impugned order is legally not maintainable as there is no illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order; that the Court has rightly exercised judicial discretion in granting benefit of provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, which may not be interfered in revision; that the criminal history of accused-persons filed at Annexure No.6 does not adversely affect accused-persons, as in Annexure No.6 only one case, case crime no.647 of 2009 is shown against the accused respondent no.5 Satish under sections 147, 336, 307 and 427 IPC, of which fate has not been disclosed and there is no other previous criminal history against any of the accused, except one case against them under section 110 G Cr.P.C. prior to filing of this case, which is of no significance.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that there is nothing on record to show that convicted respondent nos.2 to 5 had any criminal antecedents of heinous crimes. The report about their criminal history filed by revisionist at Annexure No.6 shows that prior to lodging of F.I.R. in this case, only notices were served on them under section 110G Cr.P.C. for maintaining good behaviour. Undisputedly the offences for which they were tried are punishable with sentence for a maximum period of three years. Undisputedly all the injuries of six persons are simple in nature, as opined by doctor. Admittedly accused Dataram-respondent no.2 is an old person. Under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, the Court was required to give benefit and release the accused-persons on probation of good conduct and the learned Trial Court or Appellate Court have not committed any mistake or illegality in granting above benefit to accused-persons, who were held to be first offenders. The convicts are not alleged to have misused the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and are not alleged to have committed breach of peace in contravention to the terms of probation.
The judgments relied by revisionist are based on different facts. In the case of Dalbir Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that “in view of galloping rate of road accidents in India and its devastating consequences, lenience cannot be shown and the benevolent provisions of S.4 PO Act cannot be treated as applicable to the offence under S. 304-A IPC” and in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Sri Chand (supra), the Apex Court finding held that accused not a minor, and committed offence against a minor girl, who was helpless, but for screaming by prosecutrix and arrival of P.W.3, accused could have had worse intentions, held that “on facts, offence committed was heinous in nature and there is no reason for granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.”
In above case, there were allegations of attempt to rape and outraging the modesty of minor girl, who was taken inside his house by accused, who undressed her as well as himself in closed house. The judgments relied by revisionist are not applicable to the facts of this case of incident.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for revisionist has failed to show any illegality, irregularity, impropriety, perversity or manifest error in the impugned orders of A.C.J.M./Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawahand Sessions Judge, Etawah, in giving benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and releasing the convicts on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them. There is no sufficient ground for interfering with the judicial discretion correctly exercised by two Courts below or for setting it aside the impugned orders. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
The revision is dismissed accordingly.
Let a copy of this order be sent to court below for necessary action, if any.
Order Date :- 6.1.2020