NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the judgment/order dated 20. 03. 1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 452 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "ipc" ). For offence under Section 147, they have been sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 323, they have been sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 452, they have been sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment. It has also been directed that all the sentences should run simultaneously.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that one Mr. Madhuraj Singh (P. W. 4) lodged a report (Ex. P/6) at the Police Station, Jhotwada, wherein he claimed that "smt. Rajkumari is the owner of two plots, namely Plot Nos. C-59 and C-60 situated at Amba Bari, Jaipur. While in Plot No. C-60, a complete house has been constructed, in Plot No. C- 59 only few rooms have been constructed. There is no wall to separate the two plots. ". The complainant further claimed that "he is the adopted son of Smt. Rajkumari and lives with her in Plot No. C-60. He further alleged that the appellant No. 1, Narendra Singh, is the nephew of Smt. Rajkumari. For the last four to five months, with the permission of Smt. Rajkumari, Narendra Singh has been residing in the rooms constructed on Plot No. C-59. Alongwith Narendra Singh his brother-inlaw (Sala), Bhanwar Singh is also residing. While Narendra Singh and his wife were away for few days, Bhanwar Singh vacated the rooms and took away the goods, belonging to Narendra Singh, to another place. When Narendra Singh and his wife came back, they discovered that their goods were missing. Thereupon, they threatened Smt. Rajkumari and Madhuraj Singh and told them that they will settle scores with them. On 08. 07. 1981, around 5 o'clock, in the evening, Narendra Singh came there along with fifteen to twenty persons, who were carrying sariyas (iron rods) and lathis (wooden sticks ). While the appellant No. 2, Bahadur Singh was armed with sariya, appellant No. 1, Narendra Singh was armed with lathi. INitially, the accused persons damaged the rooms. Later on, Narendra Singh hit Madhuraj Singh with lathi on his hips and ribs. Bahadur Singh struck Madhuraj Singh on his shoulder. At that time, someone fired a gun and the accused persons ran away. While, the accused persons were running, they threw stones at the house thereby breaking the window panes.

(3.) THEORY of punishment has undergone a seachange in the last century. From revenge to deterrence, the theory of punishment has now come to the reformative stage. The discoveries in the field of psychology heralded in the 19th Century by Sigmund Freud and subsequently developed in the 20th Century by B. F. Skinner have influenced penology. A person is not born as a criminal, but is transformed as a criminal because of the environment around him. However, the experiment of B. F. Skinner, with piegions, have proved the fact that people can be conditioned and re-conditioned and can be taught new skills and behavioral patterns. The studies in psychology subsequently led to change in theory of punishment in penology. The purpose behind punishment is no longer punitive or deterrent, but the aim is to reform the offender to the extent that he becomes a law-abiding citizen. With the reformative theory of punishment in the forefront, Sections 360 and 361 of CR. P. C. were introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code. Likewise, in the year 1958, the Indian Parliament enacted the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act of 1958' ). The purpose of probation is to ensure that the offender observes good behaviour and continues to be a law-abiding and law fearing citizen.