Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Conviction of Revisionists, Grants Probation in Land Dispute Assault Case
In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has set aside the conviction of two revisionists, Salik Singh and Amar Bahadur, in a land dispute assault case. The court granted the revisionists the benefit of probation under Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Justice Manjive Shukla on 14th July 2023.
The revisionists had challenged the judgment and order passed by the trial court and the additional sessions court, which had convicted them for offenses punishable under Sections 323, 325, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellate court had converted their convictions to Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC.
Justice Manjive Shukla, in the judgment, observed that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of a common intention or pre-arranged plan among the accused. Referring to Section 34 IPC, the court stated, “Before a person can be held liable for an offense done by another under Section 34 IPC, it must be established that there was a common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between the accused.” The court further noted that neither the prosecution nor the witnesses testified to any pre-meeting of minds or common intention among the accused.
Quoting from previous Supreme Court judgments, the court emphasized that the inference of common intention should not be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case. The court held that the appellate court had erred in convicting the revisionists under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC without sufficient evidence of a common intention.
Regarding the grant of probation, the court took into account the long passage of time since the commission of the crime in 1992 and the fact that the revisionists had not been convicted for any offense prior to this case. The court observed, “In the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that revisionists are entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.” Instead of sentencing, the revisionists were directed to file bonds to maintain good behavior and peace for one year.
This judgment serves as an important precedent in interpreting the application of Section 34 IPC and the grant of probation under The Probation of Offenders Act. The court’s decision not only emphasizes the necessity of proving common intention but also recognizes the relevance of individual circumstances and the passage of time in determining appropriate sentencing in criminal cases.
The case was cited with reference to previous judgments such as Sheodan and others v. The State of Rajasthan and Parichhat and Others v. The State of M.P., which reiterated the importance of establishing a pre-arranged plan and participation in the commission of the offense for the application of Section 34 IPC.
Date of Decision: 14.07.2023
Salik Singh & Another vs State of U.P
