Siyasaran vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal was admitted confined to the question whether the provisions of Section (sic) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959 (1958) were attracted to the facts and the circumstances of the present case.

The facts on which the question arises, are simple. The brother of the Appellant was a patient in a Government hospital. He was not satisfied with the treatment of his brother and bore a grudge against Dr. Sukhendra Pratap Singh PW-1. attending on him. The Appellant, a hot-headed Youngman, first insinuated the doctor about the improper manner of treatment meted out to his brother and then gave him a first blow on his face with the result that a tooth of (he doctor was dislocated and his lip was cut. The doctor was young and seemingly had otherwise healthy teeth. It is for this act that the Appellant was tried and found guilty under Sections 333 and 50 (sic). Part II IPC. He was sentenced to undergo 3 years and 2 years' R. I. respectively for the aforesaid offences. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed and hence, this appeal.

In the facts and the circumstances, we fail to see how Section ft of the abovesaid Act would come to the rescue of the Appellant. How can any Court condone such behavior and that too easily 7 PW-1 was an Assistant Surgeon in a Government hospital. The crime committed would have affected the morale of all the doctors who would have come to know of it. Violence in hospitals against the doctors and the staff cannot be permitted at any cost. Doctors and the staff must be left unruffled and not prone to such untoward incidents. In this situation, it is difficult to leave the Appellant on probation just because he happens now to have settled in life by taking employment in some Gramin Bank. The conviction of the Appellant under both the counts would, thus, have to he sustained. However, having regard to the fact that the occurrence took place in 1981 and the Appellant has most of the time remained on bail, we would presently, as suggested to by his Learned Counsel reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the Appellant under both the counts, to the period already undergone, hut add thereto a fine of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) under the first count which fine u/s 357 of the Cr. P.C. shall be paid as compensation to Dr. Sukhendra Pratap Singh, PW-1. The payment be deposited in the Trail Court on or before 31.3.1995 for being paid over to PW-1. In the event of deposit, it shall be the duty of the Trial Court to locate Dr. Sukhendra Pratap Singh. PW-1 most expeditiously so that he can obtain the compensation. In case there is failure to pay the same sum within the time allotted then the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court and as affirmed by the High Court under both the counts, shall sustain.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.