Partly allowed

Rajeshwari Prasad Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2023/364/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for offences under IPC Sections 323, 504, and 506 but modified the sentence. The court exercised its discretion under the U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938, to release the appellants on probation instead of immediate imprisonment, citing the long lapse of time and their peaceful conduct.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed partly; conviction upheld; sentence modified to grant benefit of U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938; release on probation with sureties, personal bond, and undertaking for good

Rajeshwari Prasad Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34993 Reserved on 01.05.2023 Delivered on 22.05.2023

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 364 of 2013

¶4

Revisionist :- Rajeshwari Prasad Pandey And Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Arjun Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arjun Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Instant revision has been filed with prayer to summon the record of the case, set aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2013, passed by Addl. Session Judge, Court No. 9, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No. 15/13, Rajeshwari Prasad Pandey and others Vs State of U.P. and impugned judgment dated 05.02.2013, in Criminal Case No. 7331 of 2007, Case N.C.R. No. 125/2007, U/s- 323, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda by means of which the revisionists have been convicted by the learned Appellate Court.

¶8

As per the prosecution version, on 23.04.2007, at about 10:00 A.M., all the accused persons-revisionists were blocking the path of complainant by placing the thornes of Acacia( Babul Ka Kanta) and when the complainant objected, the accused persons-revisionists hurled filthy abuses and extended life threat to the complainant and thereafter, they started beating the complainant with canes and punches and as soon as his sons Ravinder and Sunil came to his rescue, the revisionsits-accused has also beaten them and abused them. On hue and cry, the villagers namely Jagdish Pandey and other persons arrived at the place of occurrence, thereafter, the accused persons ran away.

¶9

After the aforesaid, incident, the N.C.R. No. 125/2007, was lodged under section 323, 504, 506 IPC on 23.04.2017 and the injured persons Radha Krishna Pandey, Ravindra Kumar Pandey and Sunil Kumar Pandey went to the hospital, where the, medico-legal examination was done at district hospital, Gonda on the same day. Thereafter, an

¶10

application under section 155(2) of Cr.PC. was filed by the informant before the Judicial Magistrate, wherein the order for investigation was passed by the Judicial Magistrate and police filed the chargesheet against all accused persons-revisionists.

¶11

After the commencement of the trial, the witnesses namely Radha Krishna Pandey P.W.-1, Sunil Kumar Pandey, P.W.-2, Ravindra Kumar Pandey, P.W.-3, Triyogi Narayan Pandey, P.W.-4, Dr. A.K. Mishra, P.W.5, constable Ram Kumar Shukla, P.W-6, Ram Braks Singh, P.W.-7, were examined before the court and site plan, chargesheet, general diary entry15 of Police Station- Kotwali Nagar were also relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case.

¶12

The accused were also examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein all the accused-revisionists denied the charges against them and submitted thereof, that the charges are false and the injuries are fabricated and added that they are falsely been implicated due to previous animosity.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists submits that the present revisionists-accused persons are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter, as the dispute was between the complainant and his son with the supporters of 'Hathi Wali Party' and the injuries if any, were sustained due to scuffle in between them and the present revisionists-accused persons have been implicated due to previous enmity. He next submits that all the witnesses were examined by the prosecution and are the interested witnesses as P.W.-1, father of P.W.-2, and P.W.-3, whereas, the P.W.-1 is the Mausi of P.W.-4. Further, submissions is that there is contradiction, in the statement of the witnesses and the medical evidences and that do not corroborate the prosecution story, coupled with the fact that the place of the incident is not established vide the site-plan prepared during the investigation. He submits that though, the prosecution has been failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt but the learned trial court, without properly appreciating the evidences has passed the judgment and order whereby, the present revisionists-accused persons have been punished.

¶14

Concluding his argument, he submits that the revisionists do not want to press the revision on merits. He submits that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007, i.e. way back more than fifteen years and there is further criminal proceedings reported against the revisionist and they are living decentfully in the society, therefore, they may be extended the benefit of The U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act, as sending the revisionist to jail would not serve any fruitful purpose. He submits that the revisionists are ready to pay the compensation to the complainant, if this court deemed fit to so direct.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State has vehemently opposed the revision on merits and submits that there is not perversity or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the trial court and the trial court has thoroughly discussed the evidences on merits and therefore, the revisionists have rightly been convicted, therefore, no interference is warranted.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it emerges that the trial court as well as the appellate court found that the revisionists have committed the offence and thus, they are not entitled for any relief and the trial court has thoroughly discussed and appreciated the evidences in the judgment and order and therefore, the same has been passed on merits.

¶17

When this court examines the aforesaid provisions of law, this Court is also not unmindful that the matter pertains to the year 2007 and about fifteen years have been passed from the date of the incident. Further, the revisionists-accused persons are said to be on bail and they are living peaceful and decent life in the society and have settled them and now sending the revisionists back to jail at this stage would not be a justifiable decision.

¶18

So far as the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the revisionists-accused persons with regard to the extending the benefit of section 4 of U.P. First Offenders' Probation act is concerned, it is necessary to discussed the law in this regard.

¶19

In the context above, Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant for the purpose of probation to first offenders. Both these sections are reproduced as under :-

¶20

"360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition.--

¶21

(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, 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

¶22

exceeding three years) as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

¶23

Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub-section (2).

¶24

(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub-section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.

¶25

(3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), punishable with not more than two years, imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.

¶26

(4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.

¶27

(5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law: Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this sub-section inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted.

¶28

(6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section.

¶29

(7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender under subsection (1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions.

¶30

(8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension.

¶31

(9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence.

¶32

(10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders.

¶33

361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases.--Where in any case the Court could have dealt with,-- (a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958); or (b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, 135 but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so."

¶34

There is one central Legislation on the subject in the name of ''Probation of Offenders Act Act 1958' , relevant Section 3 and 4 of are extracted hereunder:-

¶35

"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.--

¶36

When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him 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 so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on

¶37

probation of good conduct under section 4, release him after due admonition.

¶38

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4.

¶39

4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--

¶40

(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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (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.

¶44

(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) 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."

¶45

There is one more legislation on the subject namely ' 'Uttar Pradesh First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938' . Section 3 and 4 of this Act are reproduced herein below:-

¶46

"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition. - In any case in which a person is found guilty of the offences of theft, dishonesty, misappropriation or cheating, punishable under the Indian Penal Code, or of any offence punishable with not more than two years imprisonment and no previous conviction is proved against him, the court by which he is found guilty may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender, and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.

¶47

Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. - (1) When any person is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or transportation for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender partly allowed and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct 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 :

¶48

Provided that the court shall not direct the release of an offender under this section unless it is satisfied that the offender, or his surety, has a fixed place of abode and regular occupation in the place for which the court acts, or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions :

¶49

Provided also that if a person under twenty-one years of age is convicted of any offence under the Indian Penal Code, or any other enactments prescribed in this behalf under rules made by the [State Government], which is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six months, the court shall take action under this section unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it does not consider it proper to do so.

¶50

(2) Where the offender ordered to be released under sub-section (1) is under twenty-four years of age, the court may make a supervision order directing that such offender shall be under the supervision of such probation officer as may be named in the order during the period specified therein and imposing such other conditions for securing such supervision as may be specified in the order : Provided that the period so specified shall not extend beyond the date on which, in the opinion of the court, the offender will attain the age of twenty-five years.

¶51

(3) A court making an order under sub-section (2) shall require the offender, before he is released to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the condition with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants and any other matters as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.

¶52

(4) A court making an order under sub-section (2) shall furnish to the offender and the sureties, if any, a notice in writing stating in simple terms the conditions of the bond.

¶53

16. A perusal of these legislations will leave a student of Law in a confused state of mind. All these legislations are dealing with the same subject and on first sight looks encroaching each other. Looking closely, one may get that Section 360 of the Code relates only to persons not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved, may be released on probation, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, character of the offender and the gravity of the offence committed by him. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is having a much wider scope as it applies to any person found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If I look further deep into section 360 of Cr.P.C. we will find that in sub section (10) it has been provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act."

¶54

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Misri Lal and others reported in 1982 CRI. L. J. 1420 held as under :-

¶55

"26- ...................The application of Section 360 in Utter Pradesh was taken away by an Ordinance of the year 1975. The Ordinance was

¶56

repealed and replaced by the Criminal P.C. (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, No. 16 of 1976. This Act received the assent of the President on 304-1975 and published in the Utter Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 1-5-1976. Section 12 of this Act repealed the Ordinance and laid down that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Act as if this Act had come into force on November, 28, 1975. The learned trial judge decided the case on 2-2-1976. Section 10 of the Amending Act No. 16 of 1976 amended S.484 of the Code and inserted the following clause (e) after clause (d) :-

¶57

"(e) .... the United Provinces First Offenders' Probation Act 1938......shall continue in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh .... and accordingly the provisions of Section 360 of this Code shall not apply to that State and the provisions of Section 361 shall apply with the substitution or reference to the Central Acts named therein by references to the corresponding Act in force in that State".

¶58

Section 361 of the Cr.P.C. lays down that where in any case the Court could have dealt with an accused person under S.360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgement the special reasons for not having done so.

¶59

It follows from this provision read with clause (e) of S.484 mentioned above, the Court is required to record special reasons for not extending the benefit of the provisions of the Utter Pradesh First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938."

¶60

Thus, provisions of U. P. Probation Of First Offenders' Act shall be followed, in the geographical area where that has been made applicable and not Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. In this way enforcement of Probation Act in some particular area, thus excludes the applicability of the provisions of Section 360 of the Code in that particular area,however it will be the bounden duty of the Court to consider as to why not to proceed to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, as provided under Section 361 of the Cr.P.C.

¶61

Coming to the point of desirability of extending the benefit of Probation Act to the Accused/Revisionist in Sitaram Paswan and Anr v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3534 Supreme Court held as under:-

¶62

"For exercising the power which is discretionary, the Court has to consider circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the

¶63

character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. Thebenefit available to the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is subject to the limitation embodied in the provisions and the word "may" clearly indicates that the discretion vests with the Court whether to release the offender in exercise of the powers under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, having regard to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender and overall circumstances of the case. The powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act vest with the Court when any person is found guilty of the offence committed, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This power can be exercised by the Courts while finding the person guilty and if the Court thinks that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, benefit should be extended to the accused, the power can be exercised by the Court even at the appellate or revisional stage and also by this Court while hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."

¶64

In A IR 2017 SC page 660, Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P and Ors. The Supreme Court opined as under:-

¶65

"20-.........In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444. Subba Rao, J., speaking for the majority, opined thus:-

¶66

"The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."

¶67

In the light of the aforesaid provisions of law, the Court is also mindful that the matter pertains to the year 2007 and about 15 years have been passed from the date of incident whereas the dispute regarding lease of the year 1985 and years after years have lapsed and therefore sending

¶68

the revisionists back to the jail at this stage who are peacefully living in the society would not be a justifiable decision.

¶69

Therefore,on merits, so far as, conviction part is concerned, I do not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below but keeping in view the discussion made above the sentence inflicted on the revisionists-accused persons requires modification.

¶70

Consequently, the instant revision is partly allowed with the following conditions:-

¶71

The conviction of the accused-revisionists by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The sentence of accused revisionists is modified to the tune that they are provided the benefit of Section 4 of the U.P. Probation of Offenders Act and they are released on probation on the condition that they will observe good conduct and behavior and further shall also file two sureties to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- each along with their personal bonds before the trial Court and also an undertaking to the effect that they shall maintain peace and good behavior for the rest period of their lives. The revisionists shall also deposit Rs.30,000/- before the trial Court within two months and the Court below will release the said amount in favour of the State. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the revisionists shall be subjected to undergo the sentence as directed by the trial Court. The bonds aforesaid will be filed by the accused-revisionists within two months from today before the trial Court.

¶72

A certified copy of the order be also sent to the court concerned for compliance.

¶73

Let the lower court record be transmitted to the trial Court. Order Date :- 22.05.2023 Mayank

¶74

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajeshwari Prasad Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwari Prasad Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Karan Yadav and Another. Vs State of U.P.

Kashi Ram Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Govt. Lko. and Another

Chhotkku @ Jai Prakash Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Director Prosecution and Another

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another