Skip to content


Radha Raman Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1980CriLJ1393
AppellantRadha Raman Sarkar
RespondentState of West Bengal
Cases ReferredSurendra v. State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
- .....at barowaritola in the district of nadia. one dulal haldar was sitting behind them. buddhadeb told dulal to move aside, but he declined to do so. an altercation followed between buddhadeb and dulal. one chittaranjan haldar was then passing by that place on cycle. he pacified them. then the accused radharaman and his brother, harimohan. arrived at the spot and enquired of buddhadeb. the latter told them that dulal wanted to assault him. on hearing the same, radharaman assaulted dulal with fists and blows. dulal fled away. then radharaman struck kalachand on his person with fists and blows and he fell down and was unable to speak. some villagers arrived there and nursed him with water. one dr. amulya chandra mondal was called in. he examined him and declared him to be dead. then dulal.....
Judgment:

B.N. Maitra, J.

1. The prosecution case is that on the 29th October, 1972 at about 2-45 p. m., the deceased, Kalachand Haldar, along with Monimohan Haldar, Dayal Mondal and Buddhadeb were playing cards at Barowaritola in the district of Nadia. One Dulal Haldar was sitting behind them. Buddhadeb told Dulal to move aside, but he declined to do so. An altercation followed between Buddhadeb and Dulal. One Chittaranjan Haldar was then passing by that place on cycle. He pacified them. Then the accused Radharaman and his brother, Harimohan. arrived at the spot and enquired of Buddhadeb. The latter told them that Dulal wanted to assault him. On hearing the same, Radharaman assaulted Dulal with fists and blows. Dulal fled away. Then Radharaman struck Kalachand on his person with fists and blows and he fell down and was unable to speak. Some villagers arrived there and nursed him with water. One Dr. Amulya Chandra Mondal was called in. He examined him and declared him to be dead. Then Dulal went to Tehatta Police Station and lodged the First Information Report.

2. The defence was that the accused was not guilty. Dulal and others used to play cards and gamble in front of his house. He repeatedly told them to refrain from gambling in front of his house. But they did not pay any heed to his words, On that very day when they were gambling by sitting on a mat, he told them not to play cards there. They did not listen to him. So he took out the mat and set fire to it. Then a scuffle ensued between him and Kalachand. Kalachand hit him and in self-defence he also gave him a beating.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, Nadia, believed the prosecution version regarding the beating of Kalachand. But he stated that grievous hurt was caused and convicted the accused 'under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He stated that since the accused was only 20 years of age, he was inclined to take a lenient view, it was not a fit case in which the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act should be invoked. He sentenced the accused under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this appeal by the accused.

4. Mr, Anath Bandhu Pal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has stated that the Court should consider that at the relevant time the accused was only twenty. The Court should take a compassionate view of the matter and invoke the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Therelevant portion of that section is as follows:

360 (1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

5. In the case of Surendra v. State of Rajasthan in : 1979CriLJ907 the accused was below twenty-one years of age and the conviction was under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. By applying the provisions of that section necessary orders were passed by the Supreme Court.

6. The accused has no previous conviction. The offence under Section 325 I. P. C. is punishable with imprisonment for seven years. In view of his age, character and the circumstances of the case, it is expedient that he should be released on probation of good conduct. The accused be released on probation of good conduct. The sentence be suspended. He will execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one local surety to maintain good behaviour for two years. If he violates the condition of the bail, he will be called upon to receive the sentence.

7. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of.

P.C. Borooah, J.

I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //