State of H.P. vs Kamaldeen and others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, dated 29.5.2003, vide which the respondents were held guilty as under:

1 Accused Kamaldeen: u/s 304-II I.P.C.

2 Accused Chanandeen, Taideen and Ali Mohammad:

Under Section 304-II read with Section 34 I.P.C.

However, all the respondents were released by the learned trial Court on probation on furnishing of one surety each and they were also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-each to the widow of deceased Yusuf Ali, who died as a result of the incident.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

It is clear from a perusal of the record that the respondents have not challenged the findings of the learned trial Court holding the respondents guilty u/s 304-II I.P.C. and u/s 34 I.P.C., as detailed above. No specific submissions were made by the learned counsel for the respondents in regard to the findings holding the respondents guilty for the offence as detailed above.

A perusal of the judgment shows that there was nothing on record to show that when the complainant party reached the disputed field, they were armed with any weapon or Dandas. There is nothing to suggest also that at the time of the incident the complainant party were carrying some weapon, so as to cause injuries to the accused persons. The injuries on the person of Ajmat Ali, Ibrahim, Jamal Bibi and Yusuf Ali, deceased, have been proved by the witnesses including PW-5 Dr. Ashish Lekhi, who made a statement regarding injuries sustained by these witnesses. There was opinion of the Medical Officer that injury on the head of Yusuf Ali deceased was dangerous to life and these could be caused with Dandas Ext. P-2 to P-4 and sharp injury could be caused with Drat Ext. P-1. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced are sufficient to hold that the guilt of the respondents was established u/s 304-II I.PC., as detailed above.

Coming to the order passed by the learned trial Court releasing the respondents on probation, the report of the Probation Officer had been called. The learned trial Court had made a reference to the decision of the Hon''ble Karnataka High Court, in which it was observed that the benefit u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act can be given u/s 304-II I.P.C. A perusal of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act also shows that such benefit can be given since the offence was punishable upto ten years. These findings have not been specifically challenged by either of the parties. Therefore, we do not see any illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court releasing the respondents on probation. However, the learned trial Court had only directed that respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- each, in all Rs. 20,000/-, to the widow of the deceased. It was only pittance granted to the widow of the deceased, which calls for an interference by this Court. We are accordingly of the view that the respondents should be directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- each as compensation, in all a sum of Rs. One Lac, to the widow of the deceased Yusuf Ali, who died as a result of the injuries sustained in the incident. The appeal is partly allowed to this extent and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, shall be deposited by each of the respondents within a period of sixty days from today, failing which, steps shall be taken for the recovery of the amount by the learned trial Court in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The amount when deposited shall be released in favour of the widow of deceased Yusuf Ali. A copy of the judgment be sent to the learned trial Court, who shall ensure that the amount is deposited within a period of sixty days, failing which, he shall initiate proceedings for recovery of the amount. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.