State of U.P v. Vijay Bahadur Patel and others, whereby the on 21 Nov 2025

Judgment

1. List of cases has been revised and the case is being taken up in the revised call for hearing.

2. Heard Shri Girish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Bishwa Nath Nishad, learned A.G.A for the State.

3. The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the judgment and order dated

10.02.2005 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/IV-F.T.C., Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 263/2004: State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Bahadur Patel and others, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 324/34 I.P.C., for eight months rigorous imprisonment and 2 CRLA No. - 373 of 2005 fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 323/34 I.P.C. with default stipulations and acquitted them for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.02.1999 the complainant Rajeshwar Prasad Pandey gave a written report (Exhibit-3) at Police Station Kotwali, District Pratapgarh alleging therein that on 8.00 p.m. when he was returning from the market to home along with his son Sharda Nand Pandey, then near Ratanganj Bazar he got off the scooter near Ratanganj market and started urinating and told his son to go ahead. As soon as his son reached near the village Panchayat Bhawan, Vijay Bahadur Patel, Raju and Lal Kumar, started hitting him with motorcycle chain, stick and farsa with the intention to kill him. Meanwhile, he also reached there with his scooter and started shouting, then Ram Shanker Pandey, Raj Kishore and other villagers reached there, then the accused persons fled away while abusing and threatening to kill him. He and the witnesses saw and identified all the accused being beaten in the light of the Scooter and moonlight.

5. On this allegation, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. as Case Crime No. 129/199 and before lodging the F.I.R., on

26.02.1999 at 10.00 p.m. the Dr. Vimlendra Shekhar examined the injured.

6. The investigation was handed over to S.I. Balram Saroj PW-3, who visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and even recorded the statements of the witnesses, conducted the medical examination and concluded the investigation and submitted the charge- sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. before the Court of Session Judge.

7. From the court of Session Judge, the case was transferred in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Pratapgarh, wherein against the accused person charges under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. were framed and which were explained to accused persons. The accused-appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 3 CRLA No. - 373 of 2005

8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses namely PW-1 Vimlendra Shekhar, Medical Officer, District Hospital Pratapgarh, PW-2 Rajeshwar Prasad Pandey, PW-3 S.I. Balram Saroj,

PW-4 HCP Sriram Katiyar and CW-1 Ram Shanker.

9. After completing the evidence by the prosecution, statement of accused/ appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and attending incriminating circumstances, whereby the accused-appellants denied the prosecution story and evidence against them. He specifically stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case.

10. Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence oral as well as documentary, found the accused / appellants guilty and convicted the appellants-for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 324/34 I.P.C., for eight months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 323/34 I.P.C. with default stipulations and acquitted them for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C.

11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the accused-appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although they have preferred the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of punishment, but at this stage, they only intends to press the appeal in respect of sentence only and do not want to press the appeal on merit.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the State of Uttar Pradesh has its own local law of probation i.e. Uttar Pradesh First Offenders Probation Act, 1938. He further submitted that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Central Act) (herein after referred as the Act of 1958) is also applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P.; (2017) 2 SCC 198. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submitted 4 CRLA No. - 373 of 2005 that it is upon the discretion of the Court to grant benefits in either of the Acts.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident took place 26 years ago and there is no further criminal antecedent against the appellants and at present age of the appellant No.1-Vijay Bahadur Patel is about 54 years appellant No.2-Raju is about 51 years and appellant No.3-Lal Kumar is about 50 years. The delay in trial deprives the right of the appellants of speedy trial and they may be given benefit of first offender and appellants may be extended the benefit of Act of 1958. He further submitted that appellants are first time offender and they are not previously convicted in any case. He further submitted that it is the Court which may consider the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the accused-appellants.

15. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by trial court and keeping in view the evidence on record, accused- appellants have been rightly convicted.

16. Learned A.G.A. further states that the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 could be extended to the accused-appellants on certain stipulations as specified in Section 4 of the Act of 1958.

17. Before dealing with the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, it is useful to quote Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: “3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.- "Where 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 5 CRLA No. - 373 of 2005 sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition. 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.

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 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." Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is applicable where a person is found 18. guilty of committing an offence where punishment is neither life sentence nor death. The Court may release such an accused on probation of good conduct on his furnishing a bond as mentioned in the Section. The Court in applying the provisions of this section is also required to consider the circumstances of the case, character of the offender and nature of the offence before exercising its discretion. So far as the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants for 19. providing benefits of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is concerned, it is essential to discuss the legal position and law propounded by the Apex Court.

20. That Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Lal vs State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444, while discussing the purpose and object of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, has observed in para no. 4, as follows:— 6 CRLA No. - 373 of 2005 “4. 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 condition laid down in the appropriate provision 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 Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act.”

21. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash vs