OM PAL WANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 16.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby, the appeal of the appellant against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar has been modified by upholding the conviction and ordering the release of the appellant on probation.

(2.) Case FIR No. 302 dated 20.8.1984 was registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar for the offences under Section 223 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) against Om Pal Warder (appellant) and one Shiv Kumar son of Prem. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 223 IPC on the allegation that while he was posted as Jail Warder at Borstal Jail, Hisar on 2.8.1984 at about 9.30 a.m., he conducted himself in a negligent manner and allowed one convict Shiv Kumar to escape from confinement. The said Shiv Kumar was charged under Section 224 IPC on the allegation that while he was working in the Jail garden under the charge of Om Pal (appellant), he escaped from his lawful custody after which the matter was reported to the Jail Superintendent. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Ranbir Singh (PW1), the then Jail Superintendent, Tek Ram (PW2), Suthra Ram (PW3) and Dharma Nand (PW5), who were the Jail Warders, besides Bharat Singh (PW4), Deputy Jail Superintendent, Dharamvir (PW6), Head Constable, Dhugar Singh (PW7), Sub Inspector, In charge of Dog Squad, Raj Kumar (PW8), co-convict of Shiv Kumar. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) denied the prosecution version and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 223 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of non-payment of fine the appellant was to undergo further imprisonment of two months. The appellant assailed the said order of conviction dated 18.8.1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar before the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide his order dated 16.12.1991 while upholding the conviction of the appellant gave him benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Consequently, the appellant was released on probation on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with the condition that he will keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and he shall also pay Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings. It was also ordered that the fine, if already paid, shall be adjusted towards costs. The said order dated 16.12.1991, as already stated, is assailed in this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of conviction against the appellant is not sustainable and that the appellant is liable to be acquitted. He has contended that there is no independent evidence to corroborate the order of conviction and sentence. It is also contended that no reasons have been recorded as to how the witnesses of the prosecution have been believed and the defence version rejected. Therefore, the order dated 16.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar is liable to be set aside and the appellant acquitted of the offence.