IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.394 of 2002 Date of decision : July 21, 2009 Sudershan Singh and others …Appellants. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment, dated 31st May, 2002, of learned Sessions Court, whereby they have been convicted of offences, under Sections 324 and 341, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, though they were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 307 and 341, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, which led to the challaning, charging and trial of the appellants, may be summed up thus. On the night intervening 16th & 17th October, 1999, PW-1 Sukhwinder Singh, accompanied by his Chacha (father’s brother) Gonda Singh, went to see Ram Leela. Around 11.30 p.m., he felt sleepy and after informing his Chacha Gonda Singh proceeded to his house. When he reached near a Cho (rivulet), known as Kabiran Bala Cho, all the appellants affronted him and asked him why he had given beating to the brother of appellant Sudershan Singh. Then they threw him on the ground. Two Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… appellants, namely Mintoo and Nirmal Singh held him by his arms and legs, while the remaining two, i.e. Balwinder Singh and Sudershan Singh, dealt knife blows on his neck and back. He gave a tooth bite to appellant Balwinder Singh on his hand, as a result of which the knife fell on the ground. He succeeded to snatch the knife from the other assailant, Sudershan Singh. Soon his uncle Gonda Singh, accompanied by PW-2 Subhash Chand, reached the spot. On seeing them, the appellants took to heels. 3. Injured was taken to the hospital, immediately. A case was registered, under Sections 307 and 341, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of narration of incident given by PW-1 Sukhwinder Singh. Medical examination of the injured was got conducted and six incised wounds, two on the head, one on a leg and three on the back, were noticed. All the injuries were simple in nature. As per opinion of the doctor, they could have been caused by means of knife. Appellant Sudershan Singh was also got medically examined and an oval shaped abrasion was noticed on the dorsal of his right hand. Appellant Balwinder Singh, during the course of investigation, got recovered a knife from the bushes. 4. Appellants were charged by the Sessions Court, with offences, under Sections 307 and 341, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal. Code. They pleaded not guilty. 5. Prosecution examined injured Sukhwinder Singh (PW-1) and Subhash Chand (PW-2), as eye-witnesses. PW-5 Dr. Parkash Daroch was examined to prove the injuries on the …3… person of PW-1 Sukhwinder Singh and PW-7 Dr. Usha Daroch was examined to prove the oval shaped abrasion on the back of the right hand of appellant Sudershan Singh. Appellants denied that they had committed the alleged offence or were, in any way, involved in the incident, in which the injured sustained incised wounds. 6. Trial Court believed the prosecution version regarding assault and convicted the appellants of the offences, under Sections 324 and 341, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, for offence, under Section 324, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and one month imprisonment for offence, under Section 341, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and perused the record. 8. Injured Sukhwinder Singh (PW-1), while in the witness-box, testified that when he was returning home from the site of Ram Leela, all the four appellants blocked his way near a culvert and asked him why he had given beating to the brother of appellant Sudershan Singh and then they threw him on the ground and while appellants Mintoo and Nirmal Singh held him of his arms and legs, the other appellants, who were armed with knives, inflicted injuries on his neck and back. No doubt, no injury was found on the neck of the injured by PW-5 Dr. Prakash Daroch, but three incised wounds were found on his …4… back and, thus, the medical evidence partly corroborates the testimony of PW-1 Sukhwinder Singh. 9. Statement of PW-1 Sukhwinder Singh is further corroborated by PW-2 Subhash Chand. FIR, which was lodged promptly, also corroborates the version of PW-1 Sukhwinder Singh. Incident took place around 11.45 p.m. and the FIR was lodged at 2.30 a.m., the same night. 10. In view of the aforesaid evidence, I do not think there is any merit in the present appeal, as regards conviction of the appellants is concerned. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that all the appellants were very young, at the time when the incident took place. According to him, two of them were only 16 years of age and two others were of 18 years old. The submission, as regards the age of the appellants, is borne out from the evidence on record. 12. Further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in view of the fact that all the appellants were very young, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be extended to them. All the appellants, being below 21 years of age, at the relevant time, are entitled to be released on probation, in view of the provision of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Of course, Section 6 of the Act provides that benefit of probation can be denied even to a person below 21 years of age, but for that special reasons are required to be recorded. 13. In the present case, there are no special reasons. Rather the facts and the circumstances weigh in favour of the …5… appellants. It has been admitted by the injured himself that he had been involved in many cases of theft and also in a case of assault and had been convicted. He admitted that Panchayat has passed a resolution that he is a habitual offender. Under these circumstances, there should be no hitch in releasing the appellants on probation. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appellants be released, on their furnishing bonds each in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each, with one surety each in the like amount, to the effect that they shall appear in the Court to receive the sentence, if called upon to do so, during a period of one year, commencing from the date of furnishing of bonds and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The aforesaid bonds shall be furnished, within three weeks from today, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Appeal stands disposed of. July 21, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J