Vishambhar State of U.P v. … on 31 Oct 2025

Judgment

1. Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial court record.

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant Vishambhar impeaching the judgment and order 05.01.2011, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Unnao in Session Trial No.354 of 2000 (State Vs. Kirtipal Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.80 of 2000, Police Station - Maurawan, District - Unnao convicting the appellant under Section 323/34, 324/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 months and 02 Years' Rigorous Imprisonment with with a fine of Rs.1000/- respectively. In case of default in depositing the fine, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. The case of prosecution, in nutshell, as set up in the written report

3. is as under :-

(i) On 13.04.2000 in the Tilak Ceremony of Mithilesh Kumar Pandey several persons of the village were present and at the place of the said ceremony one Chhedu Singh S/o Bharat Singh came in intoxicated position and hurled abuses to one Shri Ram Gupta and he was opposed 2 CRLA No. - 59 of 2011 but he continued and brother of Chhedu Singh namely Kirtipal Singh armed with country made pistol, Lallu Singh armed with Farsa and Vishambhar Singh armed with Lathi reached on the spot and assaulted Shri Ram Gupta, who sustained several injuries including the gun shot injury in the right hand. The country made pistol was snatched by Surendra Singh and (ii) Devendra Singh from the accused-Kirtipal Singh. (iii) An altercation also took place between the parties on 26.02.2000.

4. On the written report submitted by the informant Lalit Kumar Gupta, F.I.R. of the incident (Ext. Ka-1), Case Crime No.80 of 2000, was lodged at Police Station - Maurawan, District - Unnao under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. against Chhedu, Kirtipal, Lallu and Vishambhar Singh. Another F.I.R., Case Crime No.81 of 2000, under Section 3/25 Arms Act (Ext.Ka-9) was also registered against accused Kirtipal Singh. The Investigating Officer (in short "I.O."), after completion of the 5. investigation, based upon the evidence collected, submitted the charge- sheet (Ext.Ka-5) along with injury report (Ext.Ka-3), medical prescriptions, and X-Ray report (Ext.Ka-11, Ext.Ka-12 and Ext.Kha-13) against accused-Chhedu, Kirtipal, Lallu and Vishambhar Singh. A separate charge sheet for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act (Ext.Ka-6) was submitted against accused Kirtipal Singh.

6. The Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to the Court of Session where it was registered as S.T. No.354 of 2008 (State Vs. Kirtipal Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.80 of 2000, under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Maurawan, District - Unnao, against 04 persons namely Chhedu, Kirtipal, Lallu and Vishambhar Singh and S.T. No. 355 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2000, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station - Maurawan, District- Unnao against accused - Kirtipal Singh. Charges were framed for the offence under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. against accused Chhedu, Kirtipal, Lallu and Vishambhar Singh. Charge under Section 3/25 of Arms Act was also framed against accused Kirtipal Singh. Charges were denied by the accused persons and they claimed the trial. The trial court tried both the case together and decided the same by the judgment under appeal dated 05.01.2011.

7. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the trial, accused Chhedu Singh and Lallu Singh had expired and for this reason the trial court proceed against the accused Kirtipal Singh and Vishambhar Singh. 3 CRLA No. - 59 of 2011

8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Injured Shri Ram (PW-1), Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (PW-2), Informant Lalit Kumar Gupta (PW-3), Shiv Charan (PW-4), Surendra Singh (PW-5) who proved the prosecution story, Dr. D.K. Srivastava (PW-6) proved the injury report (Ext.Ka-3), Retired S.I. Ranvir Singh (PW-7), Constable Har Govind Singh (PW-8) and Pharmacist R.N. Rawat (PW-9), proved the documentary evidence including the charge sheet.

9. It would be apt to indicate here that it is well established that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage as being an injured witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein [Vide: State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355].

10. After closing of the evidence, statement of accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court, after explaining the entire evidence and circumstances, in which appellants denied prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

11. 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/appellant guilty and convicted him as above. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

12. and order of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused- appellant has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is the 4 CRLA No. - 59 of 2011 first time offender. The learned counsel at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and is confining his submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of sentence.

14. Learned counsel for accused-appellant submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused- appellant has not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1958').

15. The Trial Court did neither invoke the provisions of the Act, 1958 nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. while sentencing the accused- appellant. The Trial Court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Act, 1958.

16. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that to that extent, the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of section 361 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be sustained.

17. Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without the beneficial provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act, 1958. If the Court chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is required to give special reasons for not applying the beneficial provision in case the accused offender otherwise is eligible for provisions of Section 360 of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act, 1958.

18. The accused-appellant has statutory right for claiming the benefit of beneficial legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act, 1958 and the learned Trial Court was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or Sections 3 or 4 of the Act, 1958 as mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or provisions of the Act, 1958 were not applied, then the learned Trial Court should have recorded reasons for the same.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant 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) 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 that it is upon the discretion of the Court to grant benefits in either of the Acts. 5 CRLA No. - 59 of 2011

20. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. He has submitted that the incident took place 25 years ago and there is no further criminal antecedent of the appellant. The delay in trial deprives the right of the appellant of speedy trial and he may be given benefit of first offender and appellant may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herein after referred as the Act of 1958). He further submitted that appellant is first time offender and is 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-appellant.

21. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the court below and keeping in view the evidence on record, accused- appellant has been rightly convicted. Learned AGA appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that 22. accused-appellant is the first time offender and was not previously convicted in any other case. He also submits that in view of the expressed provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C., considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused- appellant and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 can be granted in this case.

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

24. After considering the arguments advanced by the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, this court finds that except apart the merits of the case, so far as the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for providing benefits of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is concerned, it is essential to discuss the legal position and law propounded in this regard. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are

25. extracted hereunder: "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 6 CRLA No. - 59 of 2011 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 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."

26. 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:- "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."