103-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sher Singh and another State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE Present: Mr. Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Advocate as amicus curiae Ms. Geeta Sharma, HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present appeal of conviction dated by learned Additional Sessions Judge, stemming from DDR No. registered under Sections (hereinafter IPC) at Police Station appellants be acquitted Offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: and another Versus tate of Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocate and Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Advocate amicus curiae for the appellants Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.(ORAL) The present appeal is preferred by the dated 10.03.2003 and order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 dditional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at stemming from DDR No.15 dated 21.06.1998 in FIR No. registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 (hereinafter IPC) at Police Station Sadar, Jagadhari acquitted of the charges in which they Offence under 323 read with of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for of Rs.500/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of one read with Section 34 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for Rs.500/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of one month each. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-639-SB- 2003 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 .…Appellants ...Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR and Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Advocate appellants. DAG Haryana. **** is preferred by the appellants against judgment 03 and order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 passed Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, in the case 21.06.1998 in FIR No.114 dated 20.06.1998 07 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Jagadhari, be set-aside and accused- in which they were sentenced as under: Sentence Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine , in default of which rigorous one month each. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of , in default of which rigorous one month each. and a fine , in default of which rigorous and a fine of , in default of which rigorous MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-639-SB 2. Succinctly, Randhir Singh recorded the statement of Hospital, Jagadhri were cultivating regarding the same around 11:00 a.m., Samay Singh was ploughing the land with a tractor, Jai Pal(PW3), along with his wife Raj Kumari (PW6) and son Adesh Kumar (PW7), were co Singh was armed with a with a saria, and and objected to their presence on the land. When lawfully cultivating the land, Singh's head with a on his right arm, and Raj Kali struck Raj Kumari on the head with a Accused Manoj Kuma Kumar(PW7) with injuries to each other. statement of the Police visited the spot and investigated the present case along with cross of FIR No. 114 dated 20.06.1998. After completion of usual investigation report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was only presented against appellants Sher Singh and Ram Singh before learned committal Cou 3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the SB- 2003 2 Succinctly, the facts, as alleged, Randhir Singh recorded the statement of injured Hospital, Jagadhri wherein he stated that he and his brother were cultivating a piece of agricultural land as tenants. A civil dispute same was pending among the five brothers. around 11:00 a.m., Samay Singh was ploughing the land with a tractor, Jai , along with his wife Raj Kumari (PW6) and son Adesh Kumar collecting garbage from the field armed with a barchhi, accused-appel , and co-accused Raj Kali was armed with a and objected to their presence on the land. When lawfully cultivating the land, accused-appellant with a barchhi, accused-appellant on his right arm, and Raj Kali struck Raj Kumari on the head with a Manoj Kumar and accused Rajesh, sons of with dandas. A quarrel ensued and both the parties inflicted injuries to each other. All injured persons were taken to the hospital. On the statement of the complainant, FIR(supra)was registere ted the spot and investigated the present case along with cross of FIR No. 114 dated 20.06.1998. After completion of usual investigation report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was only presented against appellants Sher Singh and Ram Singh before learned committal Court. fter assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants vide judgment and order dated are that on 20.06.1998, ASI injured Jai Pal (PW3) at Civil stated that he and his brother, Samay Singh agricultural land as tenants. A civil dispute pending among the five brothers. On 20.06.1998, at around 11:00 a.m., Samay Singh was ploughing the land with a tractor, Jai , along with his wife Raj Kumari (PW6) and son Adesh Kumar llecting garbage from the field when accused-appellant Sher appellant Ram Singh was armed armed with a gandasi, arrived there and objected to their presence on the land. When they insisted that they were appellant Sher Singh struck on Jai Ram Singh gave a saria blow on his right arm, and Raj Kali struck Raj Kumari on the head with a gandasi. Rajesh, sons of Ram Singh, beat Adesh ensued and both the parties inflicted All injured persons were taken to the hospital. On the was registered against the accused. ted the spot and investigated the present case along with cross-case of FIR No. 114 dated 20.06.1998. After completion of usual investigation report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was only presented against appellants Sher Singh and fter assessing the material available on record, the learned trial vide judgment and order dated MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-639-SB 10/11.03.2003. appeal in this Court 4. Learned was delay in lodging promptness. The complainant pa in joint possession of the parties and order of status quo was civil court whereas civil litigation was pending as it is clear from the copy of order Ex. DD. The complainant party also attempted to commit murder of Raj Kali by running over tractor, and case under section 307 against the complainant party, which clearly evident that the complainant party had caused injuries in trail court has failed to appreciate convicted the appellants. 5. Further, there are material contradictions in the vis-a-vis medical evidence, it is stated by PW3 Jai Pal that accused Ram Singh had given a saria be inflicted on his right hand by the accused in medical testimony of PW4 Dr. Ashok Sharma and as per injury no.5 has shown in the first phalank of of doubt ought to have been given to the accused because they had inflicted injuries on the person of complainant party in their self defence. complainant party was the aggressor, where as it has clearly been mentioned that the injuries on the persons of accused are large in number, and there was no motive for the accused SB- 2003 3 . Aggrieved by the same, the appellants in this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants lodging the FIR, which has been ante promptness. The complainant party was aggressor in joint possession of the parties and order of status quo was civil court whereas civil litigation was pending as it is clear from the copy of order Ex. DD. The complainant party also attempted to commit murder of Raj g over tractor, and case under section 307 against the complainant party, which clearly evident that the complainant party had caused injuries in furtherance of their common intention. But the learned trail court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and wrongly convicted the appellants. Further, there are material contradictions in the vis medical evidence, it is stated by PW3 Jai Pal that accused Ram Singh saria blow on his right arm and no other injury has been stated to be inflicted on his right hand by the accused in medical y of PW4 Dr. Ashok Sharma and as per been shown on the PW3 Jai Pal. Later shown in the first phalank of little finger of the right hand. Therefore benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused because they had inflicted injuries on the person of complainant party in their self defence. party was the aggressor, where as it has clearly been mentioned that the injuries on the persons of accused are large in number, and there was no motive for the accused-appellants to commit the crime. appellants preferred the present appellants inter alia, contends that there the FIR, which has been ante-timed to give it color of ty was aggressor because land in dispute was in joint possession of the parties and order of status quo was passed by learned civil court whereas civil litigation was pending as it is clear from the copy of order Ex. DD. The complainant party also attempted to commit murder of Raj g over tractor, and case under section 307 IPC was registered against the complainant party, which clearly evident that the complainant party of their common intention. But the learned this aspect of the matter and wrongly Further, there are material contradictions in the ocular version vis medical evidence, it is stated by PW3 Jai Pal that accused Ram Singh blow on his right arm and no other injury has been stated to be inflicted on his right hand by the accused in medical evidence as per y of PW4 Dr. Ashok Sharma and as per copy of MLR Ex. PC the ai Pal. Later on, fracture was also finger of the right hand. Therefore benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused because they had inflicted injuries on the person of complainant party in their self defence. In fact, the party was the aggressor, where as it has clearly been mentioned that the injuries on the persons of accused are large in number, and there was to commit the crime. Hence, there is MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-639-SB contradiction between th witness, which also makes the case of prosecution highly doubtful. 6. Per contra counsel for the appellants by the learned trial Court based on correct appreci law, as such interference by this Court is not warranted. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property dispute between real brothers resulted in the alleged and DDR (supra) suffering the agony of trial 8. Section (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act’) convicts if deemed appropriate in view of circumstances of the case. Similarly, Sections 360 a convicts on probation for good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held as under: SB- 2003 4 contradiction between the medical evidence and the witness, which also makes the case of prosecution highly doubtful. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned appellants and submits that the appellants by the learned trial Court based on correct appreci , as such interference by this Court is not warranted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property dispute between real brothers resulted in the alleged incident, causing registration of FIR (supra) for their version of events suffering the agony of trial for the last 27 years. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act’) empower convicts if deemed appropriate in view of circumstances of the case. Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C also allow convicts on probation for good conduct in the cases and circumstances therein. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held as under: “6. ...having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct.....” evidence and the ocular testimony of witness, which also makes the case of prosecution highly doubtful. opposes the prayer made by learned appellants have been convicted by the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the , as such interference by this Court is not warranted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property dispute between real , causing registration of FIR (supra) vents, and the parties have been 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empower the Courts to release the convicts if deemed appropriate in view of circumstances of the case. nd 361 of the Cr.P.C also allow the Courts to release convicts on probation for good conduct in the cases and circumstances therein. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held as under:- ...having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of convicts if deemed appropriate in view of circumstances of the case. MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-639-SB A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 Kishan Kaul, has held as under: Further still, a Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 has opined as follows: “15. to sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Sectio 1958 Act has a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect over any other provisions of law. 16. statutes, are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehab 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is not a previous convict. The overarching object of the provision contained in Section 4 and 6 of the Act Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time SB- 2003 5 A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 speaking through Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, has held as under:- “6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is w subserved.” Further still, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 opined as follows: 15. We find that the attention of the Court was not to sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Sectio 1958 Act has a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect over any other provisions of law. 16. The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the statutes, we find that the provisions of S are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishnu West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 has laid down that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is not a previous convict. The overarching object of the provision contained in Section 4 and 6 of the Act Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhvir speaking through Justice Sanjay We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release tion of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 attention of the Court was not drawn to sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Section 4 of the 1958 Act has a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect over The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the ilitation of youthful offenders” Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of has laid down that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is not a previous convict. The overarching object of the provision contained in Section 4 and 6 of the Act and Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-639-SB offenders to reform habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant appeal is disposed of, in the following terms: April 07, 2025 manisha SB- 2003 6 offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant is disposed of, in the following terms:- 1) The judgment dated 10.03.2003 Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari confirming the conviction of the 2) The order of sentence dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, is modified to the extent of granting the concession of probation to the appellants for good conduct. 3) The appellants shall be released on probation for good conduct on furnishing a personal bond of with a surety for the same amount, after furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, with four weeks. 4) The appellants shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforesaid period. the petitioners fail to comply with the said directions or commit breach of the undertaking shall be called upon to undergo the se them by the learned trial Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : and not expose them in association with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant The judgment dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, confirming the conviction of the appellants is upheld. The order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 passed by the dditional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at , is modified to the extent of granting the concession for good conduct. shall be released on probation for good conduct on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each with a surety for the same amount, after furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the concerned trial shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforesaid period. If fail to comply with the said directions or commit breach of the undertaking rendered by them, they shall be called upon to undergo the sentence imposed upon trial Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment