High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/233/2020dismissed

Ladhu Ram And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

2026-02-05Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj7 pages

CRR-233-2020 (O&M)

! !

!" LADHU RAM AND ANOTHER

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

# $%# &' & ( )))))

! "

$%&

'( ) * +++++ ' & (* + ,-.

The instant petition challenges the judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby the respondent(s)/accused have been ordered to be released on probation, on furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court and were also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7500/- each equally to the petitioner(s) as well as Ved Parkash injured. 2.

, "%* # !

"-./ 012 0345401 6 !

7 & #!

7 "#

%8 % !

/# 8# '

$# -.& % 6

% "9#

"'% 6

:!! %* )

" #%%6

0145401

44 # !

% &

! 6 & # % &# #

! !! )

& #6 !!

& # # . %%6 # #* %%; <#

!# !##!

% %

% 6

& #

# <#

!! ) %%6%* "% ! 6 % &

# 6# %

& " #

% = # !

6 %

; #

" #

% %

6 & # # 6#

# !# . " %%6#!! ) # % 6 % &

# # " ; # # " # !!

"% ! % &

6#%

& " ; #

% "

# ! #!! #"%"

6& ## ! &

Investigation in the matter was conducted and a final report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed against the respondent(s)-accused persons. Copies of the charge sheet were handed over free of cost as envisaged under Section 207 Cr. P.C. Charges were framed, after finding a prima facie case, vide order dated 07.11.2015 for commission of offences under Section 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Parties led their respective evidence and on conclusion thereof, vide judgment dated 03.01.2019, the respondent(s)-accused persons were

convicted for offences under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Vide order of even date, they were sentenced as under:- Name of convicts Offences Sentence Hanuman and Kesari Ram IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each.

In default of payment of fine, convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Hanuman and Kesari Ram IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

Simple Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each.

In default of payment of fine, convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Aggrieved thereof, the respondent(s)-accused persons preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa bearing CIS No. CRA/55 of 2019. The respondent(s)-accused (appellant therein) did not challenge their conviction but prayed for their release on probation. 6.

On consideration of the respective submissions, the prayer was accepted and the Sessions Judge, Sirsa released the respondent(s)-accused persons on probation, vide judgment dated 16.12.2019. The operative part of the judgment reads thus:- "8. Appellants have been held guilty for offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. Occurrence took place

7 as far back as in the month of August, 2015 i.e. more than four years back. They have already suffered a lot during trial. They are poor people. They are sole bread earners of their families. Keeping in view, nature of offence and antecedents of appellants, while maintaining their conviction, appellants are granted benefit of Sections 3/4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in view of observations made in State of Haryana vs. Banwari 1987 CLR 136 (P&H), Bishnu Deo Shaw vs. State of West Bengal 1979 CAR 385 (SC) Rajeshwar Prasad Misra Vs. The State of West Bengal and another AIR 1965 SC 1887 (V 52 C 320).

9. It is directed that they be released on probation on their furnishing personal bonds to satisfaction of trial court for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months and to pay as compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.7500/- each) equally to Ladhu Ram, complainant and Ved Parkash, injured within 10 days and in breach thereof to appear before trial court to serve sentence as and when called. Amount of fine already deposited by appellants will be treated as costs of proceedings.

10. In view of above, appeal stands dismissed but with modification in order of sentence as stated above." 7.

Aggrieved thereof, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the charges levelled against the respondentsaccused stood duly established by the prosecution on the basis of cogent oral and medical evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner sustained an incised wound on the right forearm, just below the elbow, which clearly corroborates

1 the allegation of assault with a sharp-edge&

. " !

##*&

; # % "" %! &

>0!

6# % 6

"## # *% 6" ! #

= 6# "#"

! %

# # %

6# ! #

% *

< 6#

" "

:!! . # "

*# #

6 6

# ! %* # !

!& #%& 9.

Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the order of probation has been passed by the Court after taking into consideration all the mitigating circumstances.

10.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition.

11.

The core object behind probation of an offender is to reform and rehabilitate offender and more particularly first time, young or minor offenders by an alternate punishment. It prevents them from being exposed to a world of crime and hardened criminals. Sentencing being a cardinal responsibility to be discharged by the Court, a reformative punishment is ordinarily not interfered with when there is any manifest illegality or perversity in an order/judgment.

12.

It is evident that the Sessions Judge has duly considered the factual circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents-accused while extending to them the benefit of probation.

3 The Court has specifically taken note of the fact that the incident in question was nearly fou *

% # " !

# #

6 % " % . # " !

# #

:!! #

% ! " #

* ?

7 0 "#

"=""

! 015= %

"# "!

< # " "

% "

! % ! 13.

#< "

# 8 & %

%* " & #

#? " !& *# $ %8

#%%8 %

# &

"" "

" ?!* 6 *

&# %%*

6 * "# "" !.

# ! # !

"" ! " !##

!# ! & % # !;#!

! ! "#8

* " "

$# !!

"% !% A

""!

! * % 6

! %

# -

%%!

! 6#< ! " * 66

6 !

! # & % % #

:!! "

" !

% #

" =""

! 015.

! " !#!

%% 6"!

* # %

@6 < 6 # " "

"" "

%%6% *

* &

" !

2 14.

In the totality of the circumstances, it is evident that the learned Sessions Court has duly considered the relevant facts, the conduct of the respondents-accused, and all attendant circumstances before extending the benefit of probation. There is no material on record to indicate that the respondents-accused have violated any condition of the probation order or have conducted themselve

& ##

# "

6 # %

! " *

* %%6% *

6% *

*#%

8 # "

" %6

" & ##

< 01 !!

6%* "

+' & (.

!" B## ;

D C/ B##

% D C/