JAI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Parkash son of Phool Singh resident of Village Bakana, District Kurukshetra, was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra, as follows: (a) under section 385, Indian Penal Code, to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months; (b under section 387, Indian Penal Code, three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge(1), Kurukshetra. Hence, the present Revision Petition by him.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that on September 17, 1980, an application (Exhibit PC) was filed by Bal Kishan (P.W. 4) before Sub-Inspector Shadi Lal, Station House Officer of Police Station Radnur, in which it was stated that on the evening of August 30, 1980, he had received a threatening letter in Hindi to the effect that if he wanted to save the life of his child and his own, he should send a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at Damla Bridge at 8.30 p.m. It was also mentioned in the letter that if he failed to comply, his and his sons life would be in danger. The complainant Bal Kishan, therefore, claimed protection from the Authorities. A formal First Information Report was registered on the basis of the complaint of Bal Kishan who produced the original letter Exhibit PA which was taken into possession in presence of two witnesses on the same day. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner admitted on the very next day before the Panchayat that he was the writer of the letter. He also made a statement of this effect before the Executive Magistrate, Kurukshetra (which is Exhibit PD) on September 18, 1980. The petitioner was arrested. His sample handwriting was obtained. The handwriting on the disputed Exhibit PA, was found to tally with the sample handwriting of the petitioner as per report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Simla. The prosecution of the accused under sections 384/386/506, Indian Penal Code followed, with the result already indicated.

(3.) At the time of the arguments in this Revision Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly concentrated on the contention that in view of the fact that the petitioner was a first offender, the Courts below ought to have considered the desirability of granting him the benefit of probation instead of sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. Before this matter is considered, the legality of the conviction of the petitioner may be touched upon. The prosecution has placed enough material on the record to link the petitioner with the crime. The specimen handwriting of the petitioner was obtained by the Executive Magistrate on five Inland Letters Exhibits P.W.8/1 to P.W. 8/5. A technical objection was raised before the Additional Sessions Judge during the course of the arguments in the appeal filed by the petitioner that Shri P. K. Gael, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra, in whose presence the specimen writings were obtained, had not been produced as a witness. The Appellate Court rightly considered this aspect of the matter and found that the non-production of the Magistrate in the wake of the attending circumstances noticed in the judgment was not fatal to the prosecution. Further as rightly considered, there was no suggestion put to any prosecution witness that the sample writing were not these of the petitioner the opinion of the Handwriting Expert has clinched the issue regarding the identification of the writing on the disputed letter. In view of the cogent material on the record, the petitioner has, therefore, been rightly convicted for offences under sections 385 and 387, Indian Penal Code.