RAMESHWAR SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9487 of 2023

Rameshwar Singh And 4 Others
                                                                .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                :   Mayank Gaurav, Prashant Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)               :   G.A.

Court No. - 93
                 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Rahul
Asthana, learned A.G.A. of the State.

2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 28.08.2023 passed by learned Special judge SC/ST Act, 1989 in
Special Sessions Trial No.146 of 2014 (State vs. Rameshwar Singh and
others), under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325 and 452 I.P.C. arising out of Case
Crime No.02 of 2014, P.S. Raipura District- Chitrakoot whereby the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows :-

(i). Under Section 147 I.P.C. - One year rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine one month additional rigorous
imprisonment.

(ii). Under Section 148 I.P.C. - One year rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine one month additional rigorous
imprisonment.

(iii). Under Section 323 I.P.C. - Six months rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine additional rigorous
imprisonment for seven days.

(iv). Under Section 325 I.P.C. - Three years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine additional rigorous
                                                          CRLA No. 9487 of 2023
                                2

imprisonment of three months.

(v). Under Section 452 I.P.C. - Three years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine additional rigorous
imprisonment of three months.

3. The Prosecution Case (brief narrative) -

The complainant Ramlakhan alleged that he had worked as a "Mate"
(supervisor) under NREGA scheme in village Bhauri from 24.06.2013 to
24.08.2013 at the instance of accused Rameshwar, who was the then Village
Pradhan. When Ramlakhan went to collect his two month's pending wages
of Rs.5,520/- from accused Rameshwar, the latter refused to pay and abused
him with caste-based slurs. That same night at approx. 8:00 pm the accused
Rameshwar along with co-accused Ashish, Antu @ Durgesh, Suresh and
Indrajit arrived at Ramlakhan's house armed with lathis, axes and an illegal
firearm and declared, "इसको आज जिंदा नहीं छोड़ना है, साला ज्यादा नेता बनता है''
Ramlakhan, fearing for his life, bolted his door. The accused broke open his
door, forcibly entered in his house and beaten him severely with lathis, axes
and butt of gun. He submitted a written complaint at police station Raipura
on 17.10.2014 requesting action against the accused.

4. The prosecution in total examined six witnesses :-

P.W.-1:- Ramlakhan The complainant of the case who supported the
prosecution story and had identified all the accused in court stating that
when he demanded wages for two months he was beaten subsequently by the
accused persons.

P.W.-2:- Munni Devi (wife of complainant) Corroborated complainant's
account in examination-in-chief confirming that all five accused arrived
abusing at their house and accepted that the incident occurred inside the
house.

P.W.-3:- Constable Phoolchandra Confirmed registration of crime,
                                                          CRLA No. 9487 of 2023
                                 3

preparation of Chik FIR and Khulasa report and made no statement about
caste based slurs.

P.W.-4:- SI Satyaveer Singh( Investigating Officer) confirmed taking
charge of the investigation; recording of statements, preparation of site plan
and made no specific statement about use of casteist words. He did not
collect any documentary evidence regarding the complainant's Jati or the
accused's Jati during investigation.

P.W.-5.:- Dr. Ashok Kumar Garothia conducted the medical examination
of the complainant and stated that the injury was about one week old and
recommended X-ray. He also proved the injury report as Ext. ka-7.

P.W.-6.:- Kamlesh kumar Singh (X-ray Technician) conducted the X-ray
of the complainant's left shoulder on 19.10.2013 and the x-ray plate was
submitted to Dr. C.M. Tiwari who proved the two copies of X-ray report
marked as Ext. k-8.

5. Documentary evidence (Exhibits proved)-

Ext. ka-1- Written complaint, Ext. ka-2- Application written by
complainant U/s 156(3); Ext. ka-3- Chik FIR; Ext. ka-4- Photocopy of GD;
Ext. ka-5- Site plan; Ext. ka-6- Charge Sheet; Ext. ka-7- injury report of
complainant and Ext. ka-8- X-ray report.

6. After closing the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused
appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 17.4.1986,
wherein they denied all the charges and stated that the complainant
Ramlakhan     was     abusing   accused     Rameshwar      in   an   inebriated
state(drunkenly) and on this, the accused gave information to the police
station. When police arrived at the spot, the complainant ran away and later
filed this false case. The case has been filed due to political and village
enmity.

7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned trial court after
                                                               CRLA No. 9487 of 2023
                                   4

appreciating the evidences both oral as well as documentary, found the
appellants guilty of offence as described in paragraph no.2 of this
judgement.

8. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction,
appellants have preferred the present appeal.

9. At the time of hearing the argument of learned counsel for appellants who
has fairly stated that the conviction on merits is not being challenged and the
arguments are confined to the question of sentence seeking benefit of
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State supports the judgment of conviction but
submits that the present appellant have no criminal antecedents and the
incident is quite old.

11. After considering the arguments and after perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that except the merits of the case, so far
as the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants for providing benefits of
Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is concerned, it is essential to discuss the legal
position in this regard. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is
extracted hereunder :-

     "4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good
     conduct.-(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
                                                                         CRLA No. 9487 of 2023
                                        5

     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."


12. A similar provision finds place in the Code of Criminal Procedure, there,
Section 360 provides :-


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

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

     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)."


13. Upon considering the record of the case, the evidences available on
record, findings of the trial Court, I have satisfied that the conviction
recorded by trial court is based on cogent and reliable evidences and does
not call for interference, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is
affirmed.

14. However, on the issue of sentence, it is evident that the appellants are the
first time offenders. The occurrence is of the year 2014. The appellant has
                                                                                               CRLA No. 9487 of 2023
                                                                     6

                                    faced ordeal of trial and an appeal for a long period. The appellants having
                                    no criminal history. No adverse material have been produced regarding their
                                    conduct. In these circumstances, this Court finds appropriate to invoke the
                                    provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of
                                    sending the appellants to imprisonment.

                                    15. In the light of the above, as far as it relates with the conviction of the
                                    appellants namely Rameshwar Singh, Aashish Kumar, Antu @
                                    Durgesh, Suresh and Indrajeet is maintained but the sentence is modified.
                                    Instead of sending the appellants to jail, they are given benefit of Section 4
                                    of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and therefore are released on
                                    probation and are directed to file two sureties each to the tune of Rs.10,000/-
                                    each along with personal bonds before District Probation Officer concerned
                                    and also an undertaking to the effect that they shall maintain peace and good
                                    behavior during the period of two years from today. The said bonds are to be
                                    filed by the appellants within a period of three months from the date of
                                    receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

                                    16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the appellant shall be
                                    taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to them.

                                    17. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeal is partly
                                    allowed.

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

                                    19. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for
                                    necessary compliance.

                                    20. Trial court record shall also be sent back to the district court concerned.

                                    April 10, 2026
                                    Dev
                                                                                     (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad