Dismissed¶53

Heera Lal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2025CRR/1972/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR-1972-2019 (P&H HC, 03.04.2025, Harpreet Singh Brar J.): revision by injured Heera Lal dismissed; probation under Probation of Offenders Act ss.3-4 affirmed for first-time offenders convicted under IPC ss.323/325/506/34; additional compensation of Rs.25,000 directed under s.5 POA to the injured within one month; SC authorities on probation and ss.360/361 CrPC (Som Dutt, Lakhvir Singh, Lakahnlal, Bishnu Deo Shah) relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; however, the accused/private respondents were directed to pay total compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the injured petitioner (Heera Lal) within one month under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act; the judgment dated 05.12.2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari was upheld; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶53

Heera Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned lower Appellate Court fell into error in releasing the private respondents on probation after their conviction under Sections 323/325/506/34 IPC, so as to warrant revisional interference by this Court. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court which warrant interference.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The concession of probation was rightly granted to the private respondents, who are not previous convicts and have maintained good conduct without criminal antecedents, by invoking Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, with compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the complainant under Section 5 of the Act.

¶22

Key takeaways

The overarching objective of the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to first-time offenders to reform and not expose them to association with hardened and habitual criminal inmates in judicial custody.ratio¶36
The injured has as much right to a free, fair and speedy trial as an accused; the legislature has provided a compensatory mechanism in the form of Section 5 of the Act, and the plight of the petitioner/injured and the loss suffered by him cannot be overlooked.ratio¶41
To balance the rights of the injured/petitioner with the benefit of probation extended to the accused/private respondents, this Court deems it expedient to direct the accused/private respondents to pay total compensation of Rs.25,000/- to injured Heera Lal (petitioner) within one month.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Harpreet Singh Brar, J.) — CRR-1972-2019 (O & M), decided 03.04.2025. Criminal revision by Heera Lal, the injured, against the judgment dated 05.12.2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, which upheld the conviction dated 23.05.2016 (order of sentence 24.05.2016) of the private respondents by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for offences under Sections 323/325/506 read with Section 34 IPC, but modified the sentence by releasing them on probation for six months under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, conditioned on deposit of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one week. Held: no perversity or illegality in the appellate findings; the respondents are not previous convicts and have maintained good conduct; relying on Som Dutt (2022) 6 SCC 722, Lakhvir Singh (2021) 2 SCC 763, Lakahnlal (2021) 6 SCC 100 and Bishnu Deo Shah (AIR 1979 SC 964), the objective of Sections 4 and 6 of the 1958 Act and Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. being reformation of first-time offenders, the probation concession was affirmed. Balancing the injured's right to a free, fair and speedy trial, the Court, under Section 5 of the Act, directed the accused/private respondents to pay further total compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the injured petitioner within one month. Revision petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRR-1972-2019 (O & M) Date of decision: 03.04.2025

HEERA LAL

...PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶7

...RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶9

Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AA G , Haryana.

¶11

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Th e present revision petition has b e en filed against the impugned judgment date d 05.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby judgment of conviction dated 23.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Chi e f Judicial Magistrate, Rewari h a s been upheld, however, order of sentence da t ed 24.05.2016 has been mod i fied by releasing the private respondents on p robation for six months and co m pensation of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon t h em and was ordered to be paid t o the complainant. 2. Br i ef facts of prosecution case a r e that Surender Singh son of Sher Singh got r ecorded his statement before t h e police that on 18.01.2011 at about 7:00 PM, he along with his brother Dev e nder was present in his house. On hearing noi s e of quarrel, they both came o utside the house and saw that private respondents were quarreling with thei r aunt Dhanpati, who was got rescued by the m . Thereafter, the accused/priv a te respondents started pelting bricks but the y both saved themselves by hi d ing inside the house. In the

¶14

MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶15

CRR-1972-2019

¶16

¶17

meantime, due t o brick blows, Hira Lal (petitio n er herein) got injured and fell on the floor. He n ce, the FIR ( supra ) was got re g istered.

¶18

On assessing all the material avail a ble on the record, the learned trial Court con v icted and sentenced the respo n dents-accused vide judgment dated 23.05.20 1 6 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2016 for commission of offences under S ections 323/325/506 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the p r ivate respondents preferred an a ppeal before the learned lower Appellate Cou r t, which was partly allowed and, they were released on probation for a period of six months with the condition that all the convicts shall deposit a n amount of Rs.10,000/- as com p ensation to be payable to the complainant wi t hin a period of one week.

¶19

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court has convicted the private respondents un d er Sections 323/325/506/34 of IPC and award e d rigorous imprisonment for th r ee years, however, the learned lower Appellat e Court fell into error by releas i ng the private respondents on probation as th e same is based on untenable grounds. The charges against them stand dul y proven by all the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial Court has right l y convicted the accused perso n s. As such, the learned lower Appellate Cour t ought not to have granted the b e nefit of probation to them. 5. Pe r contra, learned State counsel o pposes the prayer made by the petitioner on th e ground that the learned lowe r Appellate Court has passed a well-reasoned o rder based on correct appreci a tion of material available on record. As such , interference of this Court is no t warranted. 6. Ha v ing heard the learned coun s el for the parties and after perusing the re c ord with their able assistance, i t transpires that vide impugned

¶20

MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶21

CRR-1972-2019 3

¶22

judgment dated 05.12.2018, the learned lowe r Appellate Court, after taking into consideration the fact that all the private respondents are not previous convicts, has r i ghtly granted the respondents, the concession of probation, while invoking provisions of Sections 3 and 4 o f Probation of Offenders Act. The learned lo w er Appellate Court has also awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to t he complainant under the prov i sions of Section 5 of the Act. Further, the pri v ate respondents-accused have maintained good conduct and do not have cri m inal antecedents.

¶23

Se c tions 3 and 4 of the Proba t ion of Offenders Act, 1958 empower the c o urts to release the offenders o n probation of good conduct in the cases and c ircumstances mentioned therei n . A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through J u stice Bela M. Trivedi, has held

¶24

as under:-

¶25

“6....having regard to the fact the r e are no criminal antecedents ag a inst the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the be n efit of releasing them on prob a tion of good conduct. In that vie w of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence im p osed on the appellants, it is di r ected that the appellants shall be r eleased on probation of good c o nduct.....”

¶26

A t wo Judge Bench of the Hon’ b le Supreme Court in Lakhvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 s p eaking through Justice Sanjay

¶27

Kishan Kaul, h a s held as under:-

¶28

“6. We may notice that the State m ent of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the ration a le for the enactment and its am e ndments: to give the benefi t of release of offenders on pr o bation of good conduct ins t ead of sentencing them to im p risonment. Thus, increasing e m phasis on the reformation and

¶29

MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶30

CRR-1972-2019

¶31

¶32

re h abilitation of offenders as use fu l and self-reliant members of so c iety without subjecting them t o the deleterious effects of jail lif e is what is sought to be subserv e d.” Fu r ther still, a two Judge Bench o f the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100

¶33

has opined as f o llows:

¶34

“1 5 . We find that the attent i on of the Court was not drawn to s ub Section (10) of Section 36 0 which provides that Section 36 0 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar la w s for the time being in force f or the treatment, training or re h abilitation of youthful offender s . Still further, Section 4 of the 19 5 8 Act has a non obstante claus e , giving overriding effect over an y other provisions of law. 16. The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the sta t utes, we find that the provisio n s of Section 360 of the Code ar e in addition to the provisions o f the 1958 Act or the Children Ac t , 1960, or any other law for t h e time being in force for the tre a tment, training or rehabilitatio n of youthful offenders”

¶35

8. Th e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of

¶36

West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 has laid down th a t it is obligatory on the part of the Court to deal with a convict under the pr o visions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence p u nishable with death penalty or imprisonment fo r life and additionally, if he is not a previous convict. The overarching obj e ct of the provision contained in Section 4 and 6 of the Act and Section 360 an d 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide a n opportunity to the first time offenders to ref o rm and not expose them in ass o ciation with the hardened and habitual crimin a l inmates incarcerated in the ju d icial custody.

¶37

9. Ho w ever, the plight of the petition e r/injured and the loss suffered by him cannot b e overlooked. Significantly, the injured had suffered injuries

¶38

MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶39

CRR-1972-2019

¶40

¶41

substantial en o ugh to attract offences punishable under Sections 323/325/506/34 of IPC. The injured has as mu c h of a right to a free, fair and speedy trial, as d oes an accused. Keeping the s a me in mind, the legislature, in its wisdom, has provided for a compensator y mechanism in the form of Section 5 of the Act, which is reproduced belo w :

¶42

Section 5. Power of court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs.—

¶43

(1) The court directing the release of an offender under section 3 or section 4, may, i f it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay—

¶44

(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to a n y person by the commission of the offence; and (b) such costs of the pr o ceedings as the court thinks reasonable.

¶45

(2) The amount ordered to b e paid under sub-section (1) may be recovered as a f ine in accordance with the provisions of sections 386 an d 387 of the Code.

¶46

(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offende r is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid o r recovered as compensation under sub-section (1) in awa r ding damages.

¶47

To balance the rights of the injure d /petitioner with the benefit of

¶48

probation exte n ded to the accused/private res p ondents, this Court deems it expedient to di r ect the accused/private respond e nts to pay total compensation of Rs.25,000/to injured-Heera Lal (petition e r herein) within one month. While compen s ation can never fully redress the suffering endured by the injured, it is a s t ep toward acknowledging the h ardship faced by him, with an aim to meaning f ully contribute towards his reha b ilitation. 10. In v iew of the above, this Court fi n ds no perversity or illegality in findings recor d ed by learned lower Appe l late Court, which warrants interference. A s such, the judgment dated 0 5.12.2018 passed by learned