Ashutosh Kumar Manoj Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1740/2001)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1740/2001)
Petitioner: Ashutosh Kumar Manoj
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1740/2001)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1740/2001)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS, S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 24, 2001
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Article 136 – Findings of fact – In spite of absence of medical certificate or injury report, accused held guilty under section 324 IPC. Such finding affirmed by High Court. Held that Supreme Court would not interfere in such finding of fact. (Para 2)
CRIMINAL LAW
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Section 4 – Conviction under section 324 IPC – Convict having a handicapped son – Likely to lose job. Held that in order to protect accused from dismissal or being dealt otherwise by employer, accused is released on probation. (Paras 3 to 5)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant now stands convicted under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Mr. K.B. Sinha, the learned senior counsel made an unsuccessful plea for acquittal on the ground that the alleged attack made to PW-3 did not result in any injury on that victim. This argument was made on the premises that no injury report has been produced. We asked the learned counsel for the State of Bihar whether there is any injury report for the court to satisfy that the blow dealt with by the appellant had resulted in any injury to PW-3. He also fairly conceded that no medical report as such has been produced, but PW-3 himself said that he sustained injuries. As this is a finding on facts by the High Court, we decline to interfere with such finding.
3. Mr. K.B. Sinha, the learned senior counsel made an alternative plea that the appellant being an employee of Canara Bank and his son is handicapped (as could be seen from the certificate produced), he may be dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. He submitted that such a merciful consideration would help him to continue in service in the Canara Bank by virtue of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He pointed out that his losing the job would be calamitous to his handicapped son. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar is not seriously opposing that plea.
4. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and instead of sentencing him, release him under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. We direct him to execute a bond before the trial court within a month from today in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) with two solvent sureties to keep good behaviour for a period of three years.
5. We make it clear that the aforesaid benefit has been granted to him to protect him from being dismissed or otherwise dealt with by the bank on the strength of the conviction. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant now stands convicted under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Mr. K.B. Sinha, the learned senior counsel made an unsuccessful plea for acquittal on the ground that the alleged attack made to PW-3 did not result in any injury on that victim. This argument was made on the premises that no injury report has been produced. We asked the learned counsel for the State of Bihar whether there is any injury report for the court to satisfy that the blow dealt with by the appellant had resulted in any injury to PW-3. He also fairly conceded that no medical report as such has been produced, but PW-3 himself said that he sustained injuries. As this is a finding on facts by the High Court, we decline to interfere with such finding.
3. Mr. K.B. Sinha, the learned senior counsel made an alternative plea that the appellant being an employee of Canara Bank and his son is handicapped (as could be seen from the certificate produced), he may be dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. He submitted that such a merciful consideration would help him to continue in service in the Canara Bank by virtue of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He pointed out that his losing the job would be calamitous to his handicapped son. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar is not seriously opposing that plea.
4. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and instead of sentencing him, release him under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. We direct him to execute a bond before the trial court within a month from today in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) with two solvent sureties to keep good behaviour for a period of three years.
5. We make it clear that the aforesaid benefit has been granted to him to protect him from being dismissed or otherwise dealt with by the bank on the strength of the conviction. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
