SOM DUTT & ORS VS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

SOM DUTT & ORS VS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……. OF 2022

 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) NO. 7831 OF 2021)

SOM DUTT & ORS. .......APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL

PRADESH ......RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Special leave is granted.

2. The appellants (original accused) have assailed the order dated

06.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in the

Criminal Revision Petition No. 149 of 2012 filed by the appellants, dismissing

the same.

3. The appellants – accused were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Karsog, District Mandi Himachal Pradesh for the offence under Section

379 read with Section 34 of IPC in the Criminal Case No. 381 of 2009, and

2

were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and

pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default thereof, to undergo further simple

imprisonment for one month, vide the judgment and order dated 20.01.2012.

The said judgment was affirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Mandi, camp at Karsog vide judgment and order dated 08.06.2012 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2012. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by

the appeallate Court, the appellants had preferred the Revision Petition being

No. 149 of 2012, which came to be dismissed by the High Court of Himachal

Pradesh vide the impugned order dated 06.08.2021

4. As per the case of prosecution, on 18.09.2008, a Police party was

patrolling at the place Dungru Nallah, when one red colour Indigo car came

from Phegal road without having any number plate. The car was stopped by the

Police party. It was driven by Manoj Kumar alias Manoj Kaushal (Accused no.

5 now deceased), and Bula Ram (Accused no.4) was sitting in the car. On being

asked they told the Police party that they were going to Sundernagar for

remoulding the tyres of the tractor which was being brought behind the car. A

tractor trolly also reached on the spot, which was being driven by Daleep

Kumar (Accused no. 2); and Som Dutt (Accused no. 1) and Ranjan Kumar

(Accused no. 3) were sitting on the tractor. The Accused no. 1 Som Dutt told

the Police that the tractor belonged to him and the documents of the tractor were

with Accused no. 4 Bula Ram. However, on checking the tractor and trolly

documents, it was found that the registration numbers were different. Hence an

3

FIR was registered against all the five accused for the offence under Section

379 read with Section 34 of IPC. After the investigation was over, the case was

tried against all the accused for the offence under Section 379 read with Section

34 of IPC and were convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.

5. Though the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants had sought to

challenge the impugned order passed by the High Court maintaining the

conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellants, we were not inclined to

interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three courts

below holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 379 of Section

34. The learned Advocate for the appellants, however had submitted that the

courts below should have considered the case of the appellants for granting

them the benefit of releasing them on probation under Section 361 of the Cr.P.C

read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. We

therefore considering the said submission had issued the notice to the

respondent-State. Learned Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar for the respondent-State

though has filed the reply, has not much resisted to the submission of the

learned Advocate for releasing the appellants on probation.

6. Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empower the courts to

release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and

circumstances mentioned therein. Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C

also empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct

in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. Hence, having regard to

4

sentence imposed by the courts below on the appellants for the offence under

Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, and having regard to the fact there are

no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them

the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the

matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the

appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of

good conduct, on each of the appellants furnishing a personal bond of Rs.

25,000/- with surety of the like amount, and on further furnishing an

undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of three years,

to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. It is further directed that if the

appellants failed to comply with the said directions or commit breach of the

undertaking given by them, they shall be called upon to undergo the sentence

imposed by the trial court.

7. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the Appeal stands allowed.

 …..…………………J.

 (SANJIV KHANNA)

NEW DELHI …..…………………J.

04.04.2022 (BELA M. TRIVEDI)