KIRRU RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, through jail, has been moved by Kirru Ram who was convicted under sections 457/511 read with section 75 of the Indian Penal Code on November 1, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 200 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. Against this conviction, he appealed to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan, in Cri. Jail Appeal No. 38 -S/10 of 1988 and by decision dated April 7, 1989 the appeal of the accused was allowed to the extent that the provisions of section 75 of the Indian Penal Code were held in -applicable in the case and the substantive sentence otherwise imposed was maintained.

(2.) As the accused was not represented by any Counsel, Shri A.K. Goel, a senior Counsel of this Court, was appointed under the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Legal Aid to Accused) Rules, 1981 to defend the accused -petitioner. During the course of preliminary hearing of the matter on merits, it was considered desirable to summon the accused and to question him as to certain facts mentioned in the petition and to know if he could leave the acts of thieving in future and settle in his village and something could be done on the sentence part of the case to which effect compassionate pleas were submitted by Shri A.K. Goel.

(3.) The record of the case was perused in order to know whether any illegality had been committed by the trial Court in recording his plea of guilty and consequential conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. No such illegality appears to have been committed nor any brought to my notice by Shri A.K. Goel who has looked into the matter and the case file exhaustively. The record file does not, in my opinion, disclose any flaw to enable the accused to earn some benefit by way of acquittal. As observed by the courts below the plea of guilty made by the accused is absolutely spontaneous, natural and is not as a result of any harassment, pressure or compulsion and the allegations of the accused to the contrary do not appear to be correct. The matter has been dealt with exhaustively. Each aspect of the case has been taken note of, discussed and decided accordingly. Court sees no justification to set aside the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below.