LexHARI KISHAN & ANR. versus SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HARI KISHAN & ANR. A v. SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. AUGUST 25, 1988 [G.L.' OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY, J.] B . Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 357-0rder to pay . ' . compensation-All Courts to exercise this power liberally to meet ent/s of justice-Reasonable period for payment may be given-If necessary payment by instalments. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Many offenders-'-Not dange- rous criminals-Weak characters who have surrendered to temptation or provocation-Court placing such offenders on probation-Protects them from possible contamination by prison. c Seven persons were convicted under sections 307/149, 3251149, D 323/149 .and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. from one year to three years. The High Court acquitted two of all charges, and live of the offen.ce under s. 307 /149 while mantaining their conviction and sentence under s. 325/149, s. 323/149 ands. 148. They were however released on probation of good conduct. Each one of them was ordered to pay com- pensatil)n of Rs.2,500 to Joginder who was seriously injured.and whose E power of speech was permanently impaired. B~fore Jhis Court the appellant contended that the intention of the live ;11ccused was obviously to commit murder of Joginder and their acquittl!l µoder s. 307 IPC was perverse. Di'sposing of the appeal, it was, HELD: (l) Under s. 307 lPC what the Court has to.see is whether F the act irrespective of its result, was done with the inten'tion or knowledge and .under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge must be such as is necessary to constitute mur- .G der. Without this ingredient being established there can be no offence of "attempt to murder•:. Under s. 307 the jntentiol! precedes the act at- tributed to accused. Therefore, the int.ention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. lit this case, the respondents had n.o intention to commit murder .. They had no motive either."[575F-GJ H '511 A B c 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. (2) Many offenders are not dangerous criminals but are weak characters or who have surrendered to temptation or provocation. In placing such type of offenders on probation the Court encourages their own sense of responsibility for their future and protects them from the stigma and possible contamination of prison. [576C-D] (3) In this case, the High Court has observed that there. was no previous history of enmity between the parties and the occurrence was an outcome of a sudden flare up. The accused had no intention to commit murder of any person. Therefore, the extention of benefit of the beneficial legislation applicable to first offenders cannot be said to be inappropriate. [576D-E] (4) Section 357 empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. This power of Courts to award compensation to victims is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power is intended to do something to re- D assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is recommended to all Courts to exercise this po wee liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. [577F-H] (5) The payment by way of compensation must be reasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, e.g. the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim E and the ability of the accused to pay etc. On these considerations the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.50,000. [578A-B] H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ' No. 74 & 75 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 128-SP of 1984. R.L. Kohli, R.C. Kohli and D.D. Sharma for the Appellant in Cr!. A. No. 74 of 1984. D.S. Tewatia and Mahabir Singh for the Appellant in Cr!. A. No. 75 of 1984. U.R. Lalit, R.S. Yadav and H.M. Singh for the Respondents. 'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ... HARi KISHAN v. SUKHBIR SINGH ISHETrY, J.] 573 JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 128-SP of 1984. The common· respon- dents in the appeals, were prosecuted for various offences in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. By judgment dated February 28, 1984 learneJ Judge convicted and s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.