SIMITRA DEVI Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is unfortunate that the trial Court's record of this case was found to have been burnt along with the other records in the record office and the first appellate Court had to decide the case without the original record. The appellate Court's file contains the grounds of appeal wherein the counsel for the present respondent challenged the order of conviction and sentence on the following grounds :-

(2.) I have looked into the copies of the statements of P.W.2 Baghicha Singh and Om Parkash P.W.3 who are alleged to be eye-witnesses and also copy of the statement of A.S.I. Sarwan Singh who recorded the statement of Baghicha Singh and investigated the case. The grounds are supported by the statements of these witnesses. In the F.I.R. Baghicha Singh had stated that he left the place after some persons had carried the injured, that is, Lakhbir Singh and Kishan Chand to the Hospital and according to the statement of Om Parkash P.W.3 he came to know the name of the person on Cycle as Lakhbir Singh who had died on the spot. In view of all these factors the learned Counsel for the respondent in the first appellate Court, being conscious of the defects in the prosecution would have argued for acquittal of the respondent but it looks that due to the absence of the original record, he felt inclined to pray for his release on probation. Counsel for the State also must have felt some difficulty and did not object to it. Ultimately the first appellate Court considered the age of the respondent to be under 21 years and felt the necessity of attracting the provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code or under the Probation of Offenders Act. This prayer was not opposed and the respondent was released on probation for a period of two years under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bond in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety in the like amount and period, undertaking to appear in the Court and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The order was pronounced on 24th September, 1984 and this bond was given on that day itself. Two years have expired on 24th September, 1986.

(3.) SO far as the question of age is concerned, the same having been given in the statement of the accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) is sufficient for purposes of considering whether the offender is under the age of 21 years or not. At the time of granting probation, the age given in the said statement by the respondent was not challenged from the order side and in view of the D.B. judgment of this Court in Mai Ditta Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Law Reporter 147 and Delhi High Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Kumar, 1980(1) F.A.C. 353, the age given in such statement is to be accepted while considering the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act in case of his conviction. From the foregoing discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the appellate Court and that too in revision by a private person. This criminal revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed.