Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 11th January 2020
Ramdas Harijan & Ors. v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal- 2012 of 2003)
Facts
The informant, Ram Adhar and the accused were the residents of the same village, Kudila, Ghaziapur. On the day of the incident, the informant was making his hut on his abadi land. The accused came armed with lathi-danda with common intention and claimed that the abadi belonged to them. Suryabhan came running on the spot and exhorted the accused to beat the informant. Consequently, they started beating the informant with lathi. This alarmed the family members of the informant, who ran towards him. They also suffered injuries by the accused. The informant took his mother along with other injured to the Police Station. Meanwhile, the accused had set fire to the hut of the informant. A FIR was registered under s. 147, 323, 325, 504, 308 of IPC against the accused.
On examination by the doctor, number of injuries was found on the body of the informant and his family-members. The I.O submitted charge sheet against the accused. Before framing of charge, accused Shyam Lal died and charges were framed against the remaining accused under s. 147, 308/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 504 IPC. The accused denied the charges and sought trial.
The Trial Court found that it was proved beyond doubt that on the day of the incident, the accused had come over the land of the informant. To prevent him from making his hut over the same, they caused simple and grievous injuries and made attempt to commit culpable homicide. The accused were found guilty of offence under Sections 147, 323/149, 325/149 and 308/149 IPC and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced. Thereafter, an appeal had been filed before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, two appellants died. Now, the appeal survives only regarding appellant nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Appellant’s contention
The counsel for the appellants submitted that the parities belonged to the same village and were still neighbours. The incident took place 28 years ago. Three accused have already died and sending the remaining appellants to jail at this stage would be very harsh. Moreover, the relationship of the appellants with the informant and his family members is now cordial. If the remaining appellants are sent to jail again then the enmity would be revived and the new generation of both the parties will again open a new chapter of enmity.
Respondent’s contention
The counsel for the informant had filed an application praying for compounding the offences against the appellants. The application is supported by an affidavit by Ram Adhar (informant/injured), wherein he has stated that the enmity between the appellants and the informant has come to an end on account of intervention of the members of the village. They had entered into compromise and were living happily and do not want that the enmity should be revived and prolonged. He has forgotten the enmity after lapse of 28 years and has prayed that on the basis of compromise between the parties the appeal may be decided.
Issues Raised
One of the key issues raised by the A.S.A was that in case appropriate punishment was not given to the surviving appellant, the faith of the common man in the courts would be shaken. The informant is only one of the injured of the incident and he cannot compound all the offences already proven in the Trial Court against the appellants. He has finally submitted that offence under Section 308 IPC is not compoundable.
Held
The Court found that offence under s. 323 and 325 IPC can be compounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused. The offence under s.308 IPC is not compoundable. In the present case only one of the injured, the informant had filed his affidavit while other injured have not done the same. This indicates that the informant has filed the affidavit only on his behalf and not on behalf of any of the injured. Under these circumstances, the compounding of the offences cannot be allowed.
However, keeping in view of the present circumstances which indicate that the relations between the parties have become normal and they are residing peacefully in the village, the Court felt that the appellants should be given benefit of s.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. A similar provision is also present in s. 360 of CrPC. This statutory provision lay down the reformatory and correctional object of sentencing and obligates the trial as well as appellate courts to give benefit of probation in appropriate cases as provided under law. The Court observed that these provisions become all the more relevant in our adjudication system where trial is often concluded after a long time and by the time decision assumes finality, the very purpose of sentencing loses its efficacy as with the passage of time the penological and social priorities change. There remains no need to inflict punishment of imprisonment, particularly when the offence involved is not serious and there is no criminal antecedent of the accused persons. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. Reliance was placed on the case of Subhash Chand & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2015 Lawsuit Alld 1343) wherein it was laid down the need to apply the law of probation and give benefit of the beneficial legislation to accused persons in appropriate cases.
Similarly, in Jagat Pal Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 3622, the SC had given the benefit of probation while upholding the conviction of accused persons under Sections 323, 452, 506IPC and has released the accused persons on executing a bond for maintaining good behaviour and peace for the period of six months. The Court refused to interfere in the impugned judgement passed by the Trial Court. However, instead of sending the appellants to jail, they shall get the benefit of s. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Consequently, the appellants shall file two sureties coupled with personal bonds to the effect that they shall not commit any offence and shall observe good behaviour and shall maintain peace during the period of one year.
Leave a Reply