Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others
Decided On : Jan-24-2013
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 34', (int) 1 => 'Section 452', (int) 2 => 'Section 452', (int) 3 => 'Section 452', (int) 4 => 'Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 6 => 'section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 323/34' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'CRA', (int) 1 => 'JUSTICE', (int) 2 => 'DAG', (int) 3 => 'NARESH', (int) 4 => 'Additional Sessions', (int) 5 => 'IPC', (int) 6 => 'CRA', (int) 7 => 'Banjar Bagh', (int) 8 => 'Danda', (int) 9 => 'IPC', (int) 10 => 'IPC', (int) 11 => 'the Offence Sentence', (int) 12 => 'IPC', (int) 13 => 'IPC', (int) 14 => 'IPC', (int) 15 => 'RI', (int) 16 => 'IPC', (int) 17 => 'IPC', (int) 18 => 'IPC', (int) 19 => 'RI', (int) 20 => 'IPC', (int) 21 => 'IPC', (int) 22 => 'IPC', (int) 23 => 'RI', (int) 24 => 'Criminal Appeal No.24', (int) 25 => 'Criminal Appeal No.22', (int) 26 => 'Additional Sessions', (int) 27 => 'Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012', (int) 28 => 'FIR', (int) 29 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court', (int) 30 => 'RCR', (int) 31 => 'Criminal', (int) 32 => 'Criminal', (int) 33 => 'State of Punjab Vs', (int) 34 => 'Hon'ble High Court', (int) 35 => 'CLR', (int) 36 => 'Court', (int) 37 => 'CRA', (int) 38 => 'IPC', (int) 39 => 'Trial Court', (int) 40 => 'CRA', (int) 41 => 'the Court of Session', (int) 42 => 'Trial Court', (int) 43 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 44 => 'Court', (int) 45 => 'CRA', (int) 46 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 47 => 'Trial Court', (int) 48 => 'Trial Court', (int) 49 => 'Court', (int) 50 => 'NARESH' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2 to 4', (int) 2 => '2 to 4', (int) 3 => '452', (int) 4 => '17.4.2002', (int) 5 => '2', (int) 6 => 'No.3', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => 'two', (int) 9 => 'No.3', (int) 10 => '3', (int) 11 => '324', (int) 12 => '452', (int) 13 => '2 to 4', (int) 14 => '452', (int) 15 => '1,000/-', (int) 16 => '1,000/-', (int) 17 => '15', (int) 18 => '1,000/-', (int) 19 => 'one', (int) 20 => '1,000/-', (int) 21 => '15', (int) 22 => '1,000/-', (int) 23 => 'one', (int) 24 => '1,000/-', (int) 25 => '15', (int) 26 => '2 to 4', (int) 27 => '4', (int) 28 => '20.7.2004', (int) 29 => '452', (int) 30 => '500/-', (int) 31 => '1', (int) 32 => '605', (int) 33 => '2', (int) 34 => '670', (int) 35 => '361', (int) 36 => '379', (int) 37 => '5', (int) 38 => '25,000/-', (int) 39 => 'one', (int) 40 => '2500/-', (int) 41 => '10,000/-', (int) 42 => '5000/-', (int) 43 => '6', (int) 44 => '2 to 4', (int) 45 => '452', (int) 46 => '7', (int) 47 => '25,000/-', (int) 48 => 'one', (int) 49 => 'No.3', (int) 50 => '5,000/-', (int) 51 => '2', (int) 52 => '4', (int) 53 => '2,500/-', (int) 54 => '8', (int) 55 => '2', (int) 56 => '3', (int) 57 => '4', (int) 58 => '10,000/-', (int) 59 => '10,000/-', (int) 60 => '30,000/-', (int) 61 => '10,000/-' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'January 24, 2013', (int) 1 => '17.9.2011', (int) 2 => '4', (int) 3 => '19.7.2004', (int) 4 => 'one month Section 324/34', (int) 5 => 'one month', (int) 6 => '2 months', (int) 7 => '500/- days', (int) 8 => 'one month', (int) 9 => '2 months', (int) 10 => 'one month', (int) 11 => '2 months', (int) 12 => '2010', (int) 13 => '2010', (int) 14 => '17.9.2011', (int) 15 => 'two months', (int) 16 => 'a period of', (int) 17 => '15 days', (int) 18 => '2007', (int) 19 => '2001', (int) 20 => '1973', (int) 21 => '1981', (int) 22 => 'more than two years', (int) 23 => 'the period of one year', (int) 24 => '5000/-', (int) 25 => 'one year', (int) 26 => '17.9.2011', (int) 27 => '19.7.2004', (int) 28 => 'one year', (int) 29 => 'two months', (int) 30 => 'January 24, 2013' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 1 => 'Versus State', (int) 2 => 'Vikas Kuthiala', (int) 3 => 'Harsimrat Rai', (int) 4 => 'C.L. Sharma', (int) 5 => 'Nos', (int) 6 => 'SANGHI', (int) 7 => 'Sunita Sharma-', (int) 8 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 9 => 'Nos', (int) 10 => 'Sunita Rani', (int) 11 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 12 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 13 => 'Rameshwari', (int) 14 => 'Monika', (int) 15 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 16 => 'Sandeep Kumar', (int) 17 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 18 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 19 => 'Kumar', (int) 20 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 21 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 22 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 23 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 24 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 25 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 26 => 'Nos', (int) 27 => 'RI', (int) 28 => 'RI', (int) 29 => 'RI', (int) 30 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 31 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 32 => 'RI', (int) 33 => 'Guljar Singh Vs', (int) 34 => 'Madhya Pardesh', (int) 35 => 'Singh', (int) 36 => 'Kumar', (int) 37 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 38 => 'Sunita', (int) 39 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 40 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 41 => 'Nos', (int) 42 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 43 => 'Nos', (int) 44 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 45 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 46 => 'Nos', (int) 47 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 48 => 'Sunita Sharma' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'NARESH', (int) 1 => 'Punjab', (int) 2 => 'J.1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 9.15 p.m.' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Dharam Pal Section 323/34', (int) 1 => 'Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 2 => 'Sunita Sharma.9' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'R.I.', (int) 1 => 'India', (int) 2 => 'India' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Govt' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1055119', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-01-24', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2013 Sunita Sharma …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.</p><p>1. The present appeal has been filed by Sunita Sharma- complainant/aggrieved person, challenging the judgment, dated 17.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, challenging their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, was partly allowed with modification of the order of sentence and they were ordered to be released on probation.</p><p>2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Sunita Rani, lodged a report with the allegations that on 17.4.2002, her CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 2 marriage was solemnized with respondent No.3, Raman Kumar. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, who are father in-law and brother in- law of the appellant, along with her husband harassed her on account of demand of dowry, therefore, she was residing at her parental house at Banjar Bagh, Hoshiarpur. On 19.7.2004, at about 9.15 p.m., when she along with her brother, Rajesh Kumar, mother, Rameshwari, and sister, Monika, was present at her parental house, then her husband, Raman Kumar, bother in-law, Sandeep Kumar, and father in-law, Dharam Pal, along with two un-identified persons, came there. Dharam Pal exhorted that the case levelling the allegation of demand of dowry be withdrawn otherwise they would kill the appellant and other family members of her family. Raman Kumar caught hold her by hair and took out a knife from his pocket and gave blows on her forehead and left arm. When Rajesh Kumar (brother of the appellant) tried to interfere to save Sunita Sharma (appellant), then Raman Kumar (respondent No.3) gave a knife blow to him also. Dharam Pal picked up a stick (Danda) lying there and started beating Sunita Sharma and her brother, Rajesh Kumar. On hearing hue and cry, several people collected at the spot and they rescued the appellant and other members of her family from the clutches of the respondents-accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the above said statement, the case was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet for the CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 3 offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 34, IPC, was presented.</p><p>4. After completion of the trial, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, and ordered to undergo the following sentences: Name of the Offence Sentence In default accused of payment of fine Dharam Pal Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days Raman Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one Kumar month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days Sandeep Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one Kumar month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days 5. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2010, while the appellant, Sunita Sharma, presented Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2010, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Both the said appeals were decided by a common judgment, dated 17.9.2011. The learned Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 4 Sessions Judge, maintained the conviction, however, modified the order of sentence by making the following observations:-</p><p>"5. Lastly, learned defence counsel pleaded that benefit of probation be extended to the accused/appellants as they are facing trial for the last more than seven years. Admittedly, present FIR was lodged on 20.7.2004 and the accused are facing trial for the last more than seven years. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months each u/s 452 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days each. They were also fined to the tune of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 324/323 IPC separately. According to Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, if requirement of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act are fulfilled, the court instead of sentencing them to any punishment may release them on probation of good conduct under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2007 (1), RCR, Criminal, 605, Guljar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pardesh and 2001 (2) RCR, Criminal, 670, State of Punjab Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others. Legislature by introducing section 360 and 361 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after amendment, intended to reform the certain criminal offenders, where it is possible by giving them benefit of probation. Same view was taken by our Hon'ble High Court in Inder Dutt Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1981, CLR, 379. In view of the law laid down in these citations, appellants are entitled to the concession of probation as they are facing the trial for the last more than seven years. Whereas, as per section 3 of CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 5 Probation of Offenders Act, Court may order to release the offender on probation for any offence punishable with the imprisonment for not more than two years or with fine. The accused are first offenders and belonging to the respectable family and it will not be in the interest of justice to send them behind bars. As such order of sentence dated 3.6.2010 passed by the learned trial court is hereby modified and accused/appellants are ordered to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount, for the period of one year and to give undertaking of good behaviour to the Govt. of India and all citizens of India during the said period and they will not commit breach of peace, failing which they are directed to appear in the court and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so. Probation bonds furnished which have been accepted and attested. Raman Kumar is fined to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and remaining accused i.e. Dharam Pal and Sandeep Kumar are fined to the tune of Rs. 2500/- each. Fine paid. This fine i.e. Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- each) be paid as compensation to the complainant Sunita and her brother Rajesh Kumar. Fine already deposited by the appellants before the trial court be treated as litigation expenses in the present case. With these modifications, appeal stands disposed of."</p><p>6. The appeal filed by the appellant, Sunita Sharma, was disposed of in view of the order passed in the appeal preferred by the respondents-accused.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the appellant though raised CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 6 various issues with regard to the releasing of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on probation and grant of meagre amount of compensation, but could not substantiate his submissions. He contended that the respondents-accused had acted in a very cruel and unusual manner, therefore, their release on probation was not justified. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant was also on lower side.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and further submitted that the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year vide judgment, dated 17.9.2011. The said period has already expired and during the probation period, the respondents-accused did not violate the terms and conditions of the bonds furnished by them. However, he submitted that without going into the controversy, the respondents-accused are still ready to pay some more compensation to the appellant, Sunita Sharma.</p><p>9. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record.</p><p>10. The respondents-accused were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, and ordered to undergo sentence of various terms including the fine by the learned Trial Court, in an incident which had occurred CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 7 on 19.7.2004. The respondents-accused preferred the appeal before the Court of Session and while maintaining the conviction, the order of sentence was modified and the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of `25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. The respondents-accused were directed to furnish an undertaking to be of good behaviour during the probation period. Respondent No.3, Raman Kumar, was ordered to pay a fine of `5,000/- while respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were ordered to pay `2,500/- each and the same was ordered to be treated as compensation and further ordered to be paid to the appellant, Sunita Sharma, and her brother, Rajesh Kumar. The fine already deposited by the respondents-accused before the learned Trial Court was ordered to be treated as litigation expenses.</p><p>11. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the judgment passed by the learned lower Appellate Court with regard to the releasing of the respondents-accused on probation. They were first offenders, belonging to respectable family and the occurrence had taken place with regard to a matrimonial dispute. During the period of probation, the respondents-accused did not violate the terms and conditions of the probation bonds furnished by them. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to disturb the order of releasing the respondents-accused CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 8 on probation. However, the appellant/aggrieved person deserves to be granted some more compensation. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to pay `10,000/- each to the appellant, Sunita Sharma. It is made clear that the said amount of `10,000/- each (totaling `30,000/-) would be in addition to the amount which has already been awarded by the learned lower Appellate Court. The respondents-accused shall deposit `10,000/- each before the learned Trial Court within two months of passing of this order and on their doing so, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice to the appellant, Sunita Sharma, and pay the amount to her.</p><p>12. As a sequel to above, the present appeal is partly allowed. In case the respondents/accused fail to deposit the amount as ordered by this Court, the same shall be recovered in accordance with the rules. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) January 24, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1055119' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 34', (int) 1 => 'Section 452', (int) 2 => 'Section 452', (int) 3 => 'Section 452', (int) 4 => 'Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 6 => 'section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 323/34' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'CRA', (int) 1 => 'JUSTICE', (int) 2 => 'DAG', (int) 3 => 'NARESH', (int) 4 => 'Additional Sessions', (int) 5 => 'IPC', (int) 6 => 'CRA', (int) 7 => 'Banjar Bagh', (int) 8 => 'Danda', (int) 9 => 'IPC', (int) 10 => 'IPC', (int) 11 => 'the Offence Sentence', (int) 12 => 'IPC', (int) 13 => 'IPC', (int) 14 => 'IPC', (int) 15 => 'RI', (int) 16 => 'IPC', (int) 17 => 'IPC', (int) 18 => 'IPC', (int) 19 => 'RI', (int) 20 => 'IPC', (int) 21 => 'IPC', (int) 22 => 'IPC', (int) 23 => 'RI', (int) 24 => 'Criminal Appeal No.24', (int) 25 => 'Criminal Appeal No.22', (int) 26 => 'Additional Sessions', (int) 27 => 'Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012', (int) 28 => 'FIR', (int) 29 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court', (int) 30 => 'RCR', (int) 31 => 'Criminal', (int) 32 => 'Criminal', (int) 33 => 'State of Punjab Vs', (int) 34 => 'Hon'ble High Court', (int) 35 => 'CLR', (int) 36 => 'Court', (int) 37 => 'CRA', (int) 38 => 'IPC', (int) 39 => 'Trial Court', (int) 40 => 'CRA', (int) 41 => 'the Court of Session', (int) 42 => 'Trial Court', (int) 43 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 44 => 'Court', (int) 45 => 'CRA', (int) 46 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 47 => 'Trial Court', (int) 48 => 'Trial Court', (int) 49 => 'Court', (int) 50 => 'NARESH' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2 to 4', (int) 2 => '2 to 4', (int) 3 => '452', (int) 4 => '17.4.2002', (int) 5 => '2', (int) 6 => 'No.3', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => 'two', (int) 9 => 'No.3', (int) 10 => '3', (int) 11 => '324', (int) 12 => '452', (int) 13 => '2 to 4', (int) 14 => '452', (int) 15 => '1,000/-', (int) 16 => '1,000/-', (int) 17 => '15', (int) 18 => '1,000/-', (int) 19 => 'one', (int) 20 => '1,000/-', (int) 21 => '15', (int) 22 => '1,000/-', (int) 23 => 'one', (int) 24 => '1,000/-', (int) 25 => '15', (int) 26 => '2 to 4', (int) 27 => '4', (int) 28 => '20.7.2004', (int) 29 => '452', (int) 30 => '500/-', (int) 31 => '1', (int) 32 => '605', (int) 33 => '2', (int) 34 => '670', (int) 35 => '361', (int) 36 => '379', (int) 37 => '5', (int) 38 => '25,000/-', (int) 39 => 'one', (int) 40 => '2500/-', (int) 41 => '10,000/-', (int) 42 => '5000/-', (int) 43 => '6', (int) 44 => '2 to 4', (int) 45 => '452', (int) 46 => '7', (int) 47 => '25,000/-', (int) 48 => 'one', (int) 49 => 'No.3', (int) 50 => '5,000/-', (int) 51 => '2', (int) 52 => '4', (int) 53 => '2,500/-', (int) 54 => '8', (int) 55 => '2', (int) 56 => '3', (int) 57 => '4', (int) 58 => '10,000/-', (int) 59 => '10,000/-', (int) 60 => '30,000/-', (int) 61 => '10,000/-' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'January 24, 2013', (int) 1 => '17.9.2011', (int) 2 => '4', (int) 3 => '19.7.2004', (int) 4 => 'one month Section 324/34', (int) 5 => 'one month', (int) 6 => '2 months', (int) 7 => '500/- days', (int) 8 => 'one month', (int) 9 => '2 months', (int) 10 => 'one month', (int) 11 => '2 months', (int) 12 => '2010', (int) 13 => '2010', (int) 14 => '17.9.2011', (int) 15 => 'two months', (int) 16 => 'a period of', (int) 17 => '15 days', (int) 18 => '2007', (int) 19 => '2001', (int) 20 => '1973', (int) 21 => '1981', (int) 22 => 'more than two years', (int) 23 => 'the period of one year', (int) 24 => '5000/-', (int) 25 => 'one year', (int) 26 => '17.9.2011', (int) 27 => '19.7.2004', (int) 28 => 'one year', (int) 29 => 'two months', (int) 30 => 'January 24, 2013' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 1 => 'Versus State', (int) 2 => 'Vikas Kuthiala', (int) 3 => 'Harsimrat Rai', (int) 4 => 'C.L. Sharma', (int) 5 => 'Nos', (int) 6 => 'SANGHI', (int) 7 => 'Sunita Sharma-', (int) 8 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 9 => 'Nos', (int) 10 => 'Sunita Rani', (int) 11 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 12 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 13 => 'Rameshwari', (int) 14 => 'Monika', (int) 15 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 16 => 'Sandeep Kumar', (int) 17 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 18 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 19 => 'Kumar', (int) 20 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 21 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 22 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 23 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 24 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 25 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 26 => 'Nos', (int) 27 => 'RI', (int) 28 => 'RI', (int) 29 => 'RI', (int) 30 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 31 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 32 => 'RI', (int) 33 => 'Guljar Singh Vs', (int) 34 => 'Madhya Pardesh', (int) 35 => 'Singh', (int) 36 => 'Kumar', (int) 37 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 38 => 'Sunita', (int) 39 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 40 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 41 => 'Nos', (int) 42 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 43 => 'Nos', (int) 44 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 45 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 46 => 'Nos', (int) 47 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 48 => 'Sunita Sharma' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'NARESH', (int) 1 => 'Punjab', (int) 2 => 'J.1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 9.15 p.m.' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Dharam Pal Section 323/34', (int) 1 => 'Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 2 => 'Sunita Sharma.9' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'R.I.', (int) 1 => 'India', (int) 2 => 'India' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Govt' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1055119', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-01-24', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2013 Sunita Sharma …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.</p><p>1. The present appeal has been filed by Sunita Sharma- complainant/aggrieved person, challenging the judgment, dated 17.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, challenging their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, was partly allowed with modification of the order of sentence and they were ordered to be released on probation.</p><p>2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Sunita Rani, lodged a report with the allegations that on 17.4.2002, her CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 2 marriage was solemnized with respondent No.3, Raman Kumar. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, who are father in-law and brother in- law of the appellant, along with her husband harassed her on account of demand of dowry, therefore, she was residing at her parental house at Banjar Bagh, Hoshiarpur. On 19.7.2004, at about 9.15 p.m., when she along with her brother, Rajesh Kumar, mother, Rameshwari, and sister, Monika, was present at her parental house, then her husband, Raman Kumar, bother in-law, Sandeep Kumar, and father in-law, Dharam Pal, along with two un-identified persons, came there. Dharam Pal exhorted that the case levelling the allegation of demand of dowry be withdrawn otherwise they would kill the appellant and other family members of her family. Raman Kumar caught hold her by hair and took out a knife from his pocket and gave blows on her forehead and left arm. When Rajesh Kumar (brother of the appellant) tried to interfere to save Sunita Sharma (appellant), then Raman Kumar (respondent No.3) gave a knife blow to him also. Dharam Pal picked up a stick (Danda) lying there and started beating Sunita Sharma and her brother, Rajesh Kumar. On hearing hue and cry, several people collected at the spot and they rescued the appellant and other members of her family from the clutches of the respondents-accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the above said statement, the case was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet for the CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 3 offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 34, IPC, was presented.</p><p>4. After completion of the trial, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, and ordered to undergo the following sentences: Name of the Offence Sentence In default accused of payment of fine Dharam Pal Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days Raman Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one Kumar month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days Sandeep Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one Kumar month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days 5. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2010, while the appellant, Sunita Sharma, presented Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2010, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Both the said appeals were decided by a common judgment, dated 17.9.2011. The learned Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 4 Sessions Judge, maintained the conviction, however, modified the order of sentence by making the following observations:-</p><p>"5. Lastly, learned defence counsel pleaded that benefit of probation be extended to the accused/appellants as they are facing trial for the last more than seven years. Admittedly, present FIR was lodged on 20.7.2004 and the accused are facing trial for the last more than seven years. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months each u/s 452 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days each. They were also fined to the tune of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 324/323 IPC separately. According to Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, if requirement of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act are fulfilled, the court instead of sentencing them to any punishment may release them on probation of good conduct under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2007 (1), RCR, Criminal, 605, Guljar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pardesh and 2001 (2) RCR, Criminal, 670, State of Punjab Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others. Legislature by introducing section 360 and 361 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after amendment, intended to reform the certain criminal offenders, where it is possible by giving them benefit of probation. Same view was taken by our Hon'ble High Court in Inder Dutt Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1981, CLR, 379. In view of the law laid down in these citations, appellants are entitled to the concession of probation as they are facing the trial for the last more than seven years. Whereas, as per section 3 of CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 5 Probation of Offenders Act, Court may order to release the offender on probation for any offence punishable with the imprisonment for not more than two years or with fine. The accused are first offenders and belonging to the respectable family and it will not be in the interest of justice to send them behind bars. As such order of sentence dated 3.6.2010 passed by the learned trial court is hereby modified and accused/appellants are ordered to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount, for the period of one year and to give undertaking of good behaviour to the Govt. of India and all citizens of India during the said period and they will not commit breach of peace, failing which they are directed to appear in the court and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so. Probation bonds furnished which have been accepted and attested. Raman Kumar is fined to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and remaining accused i.e. Dharam Pal and Sandeep Kumar are fined to the tune of Rs. 2500/- each. Fine paid. This fine i.e. Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- each) be paid as compensation to the complainant Sunita and her brother Rajesh Kumar. Fine already deposited by the appellants before the trial court be treated as litigation expenses in the present case. With these modifications, appeal stands disposed of."</p><p>6. The appeal filed by the appellant, Sunita Sharma, was disposed of in view of the order passed in the appeal preferred by the respondents-accused.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the appellant though raised CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 6 various issues with regard to the releasing of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on probation and grant of meagre amount of compensation, but could not substantiate his submissions. He contended that the respondents-accused had acted in a very cruel and unusual manner, therefore, their release on probation was not justified. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant was also on lower side.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and further submitted that the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year vide judgment, dated 17.9.2011. The said period has already expired and during the probation period, the respondents-accused did not violate the terms and conditions of the bonds furnished by them. However, he submitted that without going into the controversy, the respondents-accused are still ready to pay some more compensation to the appellant, Sunita Sharma.</p><p>9. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record.</p><p>10. The respondents-accused were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, and ordered to undergo sentence of various terms including the fine by the learned Trial Court, in an incident which had occurred CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 7 on 19.7.2004. The respondents-accused preferred the appeal before the Court of Session and while maintaining the conviction, the order of sentence was modified and the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of `25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. The respondents-accused were directed to furnish an undertaking to be of good behaviour during the probation period. Respondent No.3, Raman Kumar, was ordered to pay a fine of `5,000/- while respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were ordered to pay `2,500/- each and the same was ordered to be treated as compensation and further ordered to be paid to the appellant, Sunita Sharma, and her brother, Rajesh Kumar. The fine already deposited by the respondents-accused before the learned Trial Court was ordered to be treated as litigation expenses.</p><p>11. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the judgment passed by the learned lower Appellate Court with regard to the releasing of the respondents-accused on probation. They were first offenders, belonging to respectable family and the occurrence had taken place with regard to a matrimonial dispute. During the period of probation, the respondents-accused did not violate the terms and conditions of the probation bonds furnished by them. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to disturb the order of releasing the respondents-accused CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 8 on probation. However, the appellant/aggrieved person deserves to be granted some more compensation. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to pay `10,000/- each to the appellant, Sunita Sharma. It is made clear that the said amount of `10,000/- each (totaling `30,000/-) would be in addition to the amount which has already been awarded by the learned lower Appellate Court. The respondents-accused shall deposit `10,000/- each before the learned Trial Court within two months of passing of this order and on their doing so, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice to the appellant, Sunita Sharma, and pay the amount to her.</p><p>12. As a sequel to above, the present appeal is partly allowed. In case the respondents/accused fail to deposit the amount as ordered by this Court, the same shall be recovered in accordance with the rules. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) January 24, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1055119' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 34', (int) 1 => 'Section 452', (int) 2 => 'Section 452', (int) 3 => 'Section 452', (int) 4 => 'Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 6 => 'section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 323/34' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'CRA', (int) 1 => 'JUSTICE', (int) 2 => 'DAG', (int) 3 => 'NARESH', (int) 4 => 'Additional Sessions', (int) 5 => 'IPC', (int) 6 => 'CRA', (int) 7 => 'Banjar Bagh', (int) 8 => 'Danda', (int) 9 => 'IPC', (int) 10 => 'IPC', (int) 11 => 'the Offence Sentence', (int) 12 => 'IPC', (int) 13 => 'IPC', (int) 14 => 'IPC', (int) 15 => 'RI', (int) 16 => 'IPC', (int) 17 => 'IPC', (int) 18 => 'IPC', (int) 19 => 'RI', (int) 20 => 'IPC', (int) 21 => 'IPC', (int) 22 => 'IPC', (int) 23 => 'RI', (int) 24 => 'Criminal Appeal No.24', (int) 25 => 'Criminal Appeal No.22', (int) 26 => 'Additional Sessions', (int) 27 => 'Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012', (int) 28 => 'FIR', (int) 29 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court', (int) 30 => 'RCR', (int) 31 => 'Criminal', (int) 32 => 'Criminal', (int) 33 => 'State of Punjab Vs', (int) 34 => 'Hon'ble High Court', (int) 35 => 'CLR', (int) 36 => 'Court', (int) 37 => 'CRA', (int) 38 => 'IPC', (int) 39 => 'Trial Court', (int) 40 => 'CRA', (int) 41 => 'the Court of Session', (int) 42 => 'Trial Court', (int) 43 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 44 => 'Court', (int) 45 => 'CRA', (int) 46 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 47 => 'Trial Court', (int) 48 => 'Trial Court', (int) 49 => 'Court', (int) 50 => 'NARESH' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2 to 4', (int) 2 => '2 to 4', (int) 3 => '452', (int) 4 => '17.4.2002', (int) 5 => '2', (int) 6 => 'No.3', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => 'two', (int) 9 => 'No.3', (int) 10 => '3', (int) 11 => '324', (int) 12 => '452', (int) 13 => '2 to 4', (int) 14 => '452', (int) 15 => '1,000/-', (int) 16 => '1,000/-', (int) 17 => '15', (int) 18 => '1,000/-', (int) 19 => 'one', (int) 20 => '1,000/-', (int) 21 => '15', (int) 22 => '1,000/-', (int) 23 => 'one', (int) 24 => '1,000/-', (int) 25 => '15', (int) 26 => '2 to 4', (int) 27 => '4', (int) 28 => '20.7.2004', (int) 29 => '452', (int) 30 => '500/-', (int) 31 => '1', (int) 32 => '605', (int) 33 => '2', (int) 34 => '670', (int) 35 => '361', (int) 36 => '379', (int) 37 => '5', (int) 38 => '25,000/-', (int) 39 => 'one', (int) 40 => '2500/-', (int) 41 => '10,000/-', (int) 42 => '5000/-', (int) 43 => '6', (int) 44 => '2 to 4', (int) 45 => '452', (int) 46 => '7', (int) 47 => '25,000/-', (int) 48 => 'one', (int) 49 => 'No.3', (int) 50 => '5,000/-', (int) 51 => '2', (int) 52 => '4', (int) 53 => '2,500/-', (int) 54 => '8', (int) 55 => '2', (int) 56 => '3', (int) 57 => '4', (int) 58 => '10,000/-', (int) 59 => '10,000/-', (int) 60 => '30,000/-', (int) 61 => '10,000/-' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'January 24, 2013', (int) 1 => '17.9.2011', (int) 2 => '4', (int) 3 => '19.7.2004', (int) 4 => 'one month Section 324/34', (int) 5 => 'one month', (int) 6 => '2 months', (int) 7 => '500/- days', (int) 8 => 'one month', (int) 9 => '2 months', (int) 10 => 'one month', (int) 11 => '2 months', (int) 12 => '2010', (int) 13 => '2010', (int) 14 => '17.9.2011', (int) 15 => 'two months', (int) 16 => 'a period of', (int) 17 => '15 days', (int) 18 => '2007', (int) 19 => '2001', (int) 20 => '1973', (int) 21 => '1981', (int) 22 => 'more than two years', (int) 23 => 'the period of one year', (int) 24 => '5000/-', (int) 25 => 'one year', (int) 26 => '17.9.2011', (int) 27 => '19.7.2004', (int) 28 => 'one year', (int) 29 => 'two months', (int) 30 => 'January 24, 2013' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 1 => 'Versus State', (int) 2 => 'Vikas Kuthiala', (int) 3 => 'Harsimrat Rai', (int) 4 => 'C.L. Sharma', (int) 5 => 'Nos', (int) 6 => 'SANGHI', (int) 7 => 'Sunita Sharma-', (int) 8 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 9 => 'Nos', (int) 10 => 'Sunita Rani', (int) 11 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 12 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 13 => 'Rameshwari', (int) 14 => 'Monika', (int) 15 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 16 => 'Sandeep Kumar', (int) 17 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 18 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 19 => 'Kumar', (int) 20 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 21 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 22 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 23 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 24 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 25 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 26 => 'Nos', (int) 27 => 'RI', (int) 28 => 'RI', (int) 29 => 'RI', (int) 30 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 31 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 32 => 'RI', (int) 33 => 'Guljar Singh Vs', (int) 34 => 'Madhya Pardesh', (int) 35 => 'Singh', (int) 36 => 'Kumar', (int) 37 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 38 => 'Sunita', (int) 39 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 40 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 41 => 'Nos', (int) 42 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 43 => 'Nos', (int) 44 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 45 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 46 => 'Nos', (int) 47 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 48 => 'Sunita Sharma' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'NARESH', (int) 1 => 'Punjab', (int) 2 => 'J.1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 9.15 p.m.' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Dharam Pal Section 323/34', (int) 1 => 'Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 2 => 'Sunita Sharma.9' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'R.I.', (int) 1 => 'India', (int) 2 => 'India' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Govt' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1055119', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-01-24', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2013 Sunita Sharma …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.</p><p>1. The present appeal has been filed by Sunita Sharma- complainant/aggrieved person, challenging the judgment, dated 17.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, challenging their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, was partly allowed with modification of the order of sentence and they were ordered to be released on probation.</p><p>2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Sunita Rani, lodged a report with the allegations that on 17.4.2002, her CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 2 marriage was solemnized with respondent No.3, Raman Kumar. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, who are father in-law and brother in- law of the appellant, along with her husband harassed her on account of demand of dowry, therefore, she was residing at her parental house at Banjar Bagh, Hoshiarpur. On 19.7.2004, at about 9.15 p.m., when she along with her brother, Rajesh Kumar, mother, Rameshwari, and sister, Monika, was present at her parental house, then her husband, Raman Kumar, bother in-law, Sandeep Kumar, and father in-law, Dharam Pal, along with two un-identified persons, came there. Dharam Pal exhorted that the case levelling the allegation of demand of dowry be withdrawn otherwise they would kill the appellant and other family members of her family. Raman Kumar caught hold her by hair and took out a knife from his pocket and gave blows on her forehead and left arm. When Rajesh Kumar (brother of the appellant) tried to interfere to save Sunita Sharma (appellant), then Raman Kumar (respondent No.3) gave a knife blow to him also. Dharam Pal picked up a stick (Danda) lying there and started beating Sunita Sharma and her brother, Rajesh Kumar. On hearing hue and cry, several people collected at the spot and they rescued the appellant and other members of her family from the clutches of the respondents-accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the above said statement, the case was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet for the CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 3 offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 34, IPC, was presented.</p><p>4. After completion of the trial, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, and ordered to undergo the following sentences: Name of the Offence Sentence In default accused of payment of fine Dharam Pal Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days Raman Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one Kumar month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days Sandeep Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one Kumar month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days 5. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2010, while the appellant, Sunita Sharma, presented Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2010, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Both the said appeals were decided by a common judgment, dated 17.9.2011. The learned Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 4 Sessions Judge, maintained the conviction, however, modified the order of sentence by making the following observations:-</p><p>"5. Lastly, learned defence counsel pleaded that benefit of probation be extended to the accused/appellants as they are facing trial for the last more than seven years. Admittedly, present FIR was lodged on 20.7.2004 and the accused are facing trial for the last more than seven years. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months each u/s 452 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days each. They were also fined to the tune of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 324/323 IPC separately. According to Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, if requirement of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act are fulfilled, the court instead of sentencing them to any punishment may release them on probation of good conduct under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2007 (1), RCR, Criminal, 605, Guljar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pardesh and 2001 (2) RCR, Criminal, 670, State of Punjab Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others. Legislature by introducing section 360 and 361 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after amendment, intended to reform the certain criminal offenders, where it is possible by giving them benefit of probation. Same view was taken by our Hon'ble High Court in Inder Dutt Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1981, CLR, 379. In view of the law laid down in these citations, appellants are entitled to the concession of probation as they are facing the trial for the last more than seven years. Whereas, as per section 3 of CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 5 Probation of Offenders Act, Court may order to release the offender on probation for any offence punishable with the imprisonment for not more than two years or with fine. The accused are first offenders and belonging to the respectable family and it will not be in the interest of justice to send them behind bars. As such order of sentence dated 3.6.2010 passed by the learned trial court is hereby modified and accused/appellants are ordered to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount, for the period of one year and to give undertaking of good behaviour to the Govt. of India and all citizens of India during the said period and they will not commit breach of peace, failing which they are directed to appear in the court and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so. Probation bonds furnished which have been accepted and attested. Raman Kumar is fined to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and remaining accused i.e. Dharam Pal and Sandeep Kumar are fined to the tune of Rs. 2500/- each. Fine paid. This fine i.e. Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- each) be paid as compensation to the complainant Sunita and her brother Rajesh Kumar. Fine already deposited by the appellants before the trial court be treated as litigation expenses in the present case. With these modifications, appeal stands disposed of."</p><p>6. The appeal filed by the appellant, Sunita Sharma, was disposed of in view of the order passed in the appeal preferred by the respondents-accused.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the appellant though raised CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 6 various issues with regard to the releasing of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on probation and grant of meagre amount of compensation, but could not substantiate his submissions. He contended that the respondents-accused had acted in a very cruel and unusual manner, therefore, their release on probation was not justified. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant was also on lower side.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and further submitted that the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year vide judgment, dated 17.9.2011. The said period has already expired and during the probation period, the respondents-accused did not violate the terms and conditions of the bonds furnished by them. However, he submitted that without going into the controversy, the respondents-accused are still ready to pay some more compensation to the appellant, Sunita Sharma.</p><p>9. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record.</p><p>10. The respondents-accused were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, and ordered to undergo sentence of various terms including the fine by the learned Trial Court, in an incident which had occurred CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 7 on 19.7.2004. The respondents-accused preferred the appeal before the Court of Session and while maintaining the conviction, the order of sentence was modified and the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of `25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. The respondents-accused were directed to furnish an undertaking to be of good behaviour during the probation period. Respondent No.3, Raman Kumar, was ordered to pay a fine of `5,000/- while respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were ordered to pay `2,500/- each and the same was ordered to be treated as compensation and further ordered to be paid to the appellant, Sunita Sharma, and her brother, Rajesh Kumar. The fine already deposited by the respondents-accused before the learned Trial Court was ordered to be treated as litigation expenses.</p><p>11. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the judgment passed by the learned lower Appellate Court with regard to the releasing of the respondents-accused on probation. They were first offenders, belonging to respectable family and the occurrence had taken place with regard to a matrimonial dispute. During the period of probation, the respondents-accused did not violate the terms and conditions of the probation bonds furnished by them. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to disturb the order of releasing the respondents-accused CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 8 on probation. However, the appellant/aggrieved person deserves to be granted some more compensation. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to pay `10,000/- each to the appellant, Sunita Sharma. It is made clear that the said amount of `10,000/- each (totaling `30,000/-) would be in addition to the amount which has already been awarded by the learned lower Appellate Court. The respondents-accused shall deposit `10,000/- each before the learned Trial Court within two months of passing of this order and on their doing so, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice to the appellant, Sunita Sharma, and pay the amount to her.</p><p>12. As a sequel to above, the present appeal is partly allowed. In case the respondents/accused fail to deposit the amount as ordered by this Court, the same shall be recovered in accordance with the rules. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) January 24, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1055119' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 34', (int) 1 => 'Section 452', (int) 2 => 'Section 452', (int) 3 => 'Section 452', (int) 4 => 'Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 6 => 'section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 323/34' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'CRA', (int) 1 => 'JUSTICE', (int) 2 => 'DAG', (int) 3 => 'NARESH', (int) 4 => 'Additional Sessions', (int) 5 => 'IPC', (int) 6 => 'CRA', (int) 7 => 'Banjar Bagh', (int) 8 => 'Danda', (int) 9 => 'IPC', (int) 10 => 'IPC', (int) 11 => 'the Offence Sentence', (int) 12 => 'IPC', (int) 13 => 'IPC', (int) 14 => 'IPC', (int) 15 => 'RI', (int) 16 => 'IPC', (int) 17 => 'IPC', (int) 18 => 'IPC', (int) 19 => 'RI', (int) 20 => 'IPC', (int) 21 => 'IPC', (int) 22 => 'IPC', (int) 23 => 'RI', (int) 24 => 'Criminal Appeal No.24', (int) 25 => 'Criminal Appeal No.22', (int) 26 => 'Additional Sessions', (int) 27 => 'Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012', (int) 28 => 'FIR', (int) 29 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court', (int) 30 => 'RCR', (int) 31 => 'Criminal', (int) 32 => 'Criminal', (int) 33 => 'State of Punjab Vs', (int) 34 => 'Hon'ble High Court', (int) 35 => 'CLR', (int) 36 => 'Court', (int) 37 => 'CRA', (int) 38 => 'IPC', (int) 39 => 'Trial Court', (int) 40 => 'CRA', (int) 41 => 'the Court of Session', (int) 42 => 'Trial Court', (int) 43 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 44 => 'Court', (int) 45 => 'CRA', (int) 46 => 'Appellate Court', (int) 47 => 'Trial Court', (int) 48 => 'Trial Court', (int) 49 => 'Court', (int) 50 => 'NARESH' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2 to 4', (int) 2 => '2 to 4', (int) 3 => '452', (int) 4 => '17.4.2002', (int) 5 => '2', (int) 6 => 'No.3', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => 'two', (int) 9 => 'No.3', (int) 10 => '3', (int) 11 => '324', (int) 12 => '452', (int) 13 => '2 to 4', (int) 14 => '452', (int) 15 => '1,000/-', (int) 16 => '1,000/-', (int) 17 => '15', (int) 18 => '1,000/-', (int) 19 => 'one', (int) 20 => '1,000/-', (int) 21 => '15', (int) 22 => '1,000/-', (int) 23 => 'one', (int) 24 => '1,000/-', (int) 25 => '15', (int) 26 => '2 to 4', (int) 27 => '4', (int) 28 => '20.7.2004', (int) 29 => '452', (int) 30 => '500/-', (int) 31 => '1', (int) 32 => '605', (int) 33 => '2', (int) 34 => '670', (int) 35 => '361', (int) 36 => '379', (int) 37 => '5', (int) 38 => '25,000/-', (int) 39 => 'one', (int) 40 => '2500/-', (int) 41 => '10,000/-', (int) 42 => '5000/-', (int) 43 => '6', (int) 44 => '2 to 4', (int) 45 => '452', (int) 46 => '7', (int) 47 => '25,000/-', (int) 48 => 'one', (int) 49 => 'No.3', (int) 50 => '5,000/-', (int) 51 => '2', (int) 52 => '4', (int) 53 => '2,500/-', (int) 54 => '8', (int) 55 => '2', (int) 56 => '3', (int) 57 => '4', (int) 58 => '10,000/-', (int) 59 => '10,000/-', (int) 60 => '30,000/-', (int) 61 => '10,000/-' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'January 24, 2013', (int) 1 => '17.9.2011', (int) 2 => '4', (int) 3 => '19.7.2004', (int) 4 => 'one month Section 324/34', (int) 5 => 'one month', (int) 6 => '2 months', (int) 7 => '500/- days', (int) 8 => 'one month', (int) 9 => '2 months', (int) 10 => 'one month', (int) 11 => '2 months', (int) 12 => '2010', (int) 13 => '2010', (int) 14 => '17.9.2011', (int) 15 => 'two months', (int) 16 => 'a period of', (int) 17 => '15 days', (int) 18 => '2007', (int) 19 => '2001', (int) 20 => '1973', (int) 21 => '1981', (int) 22 => 'more than two years', (int) 23 => 'the period of one year', (int) 24 => '5000/-', (int) 25 => 'one year', (int) 26 => '17.9.2011', (int) 27 => '19.7.2004', (int) 28 => 'one year', (int) 29 => 'two months', (int) 30 => 'January 24, 2013' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 1 => 'Versus State', (int) 2 => 'Vikas Kuthiala', (int) 3 => 'Harsimrat Rai', (int) 4 => 'C.L. Sharma', (int) 5 => 'Nos', (int) 6 => 'SANGHI', (int) 7 => 'Sunita Sharma-', (int) 8 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 9 => 'Nos', (int) 10 => 'Sunita Rani', (int) 11 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 12 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 13 => 'Rameshwari', (int) 14 => 'Monika', (int) 15 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 16 => 'Sandeep Kumar', (int) 17 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 18 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 19 => 'Kumar', (int) 20 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 21 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 22 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 23 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 24 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 25 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 26 => 'Nos', (int) 27 => 'RI', (int) 28 => 'RI', (int) 29 => 'RI', (int) 30 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 31 => 'Hoshiarpur', (int) 32 => 'RI', (int) 33 => 'Guljar Singh Vs', (int) 34 => 'Madhya Pardesh', (int) 35 => 'Singh', (int) 36 => 'Kumar', (int) 37 => 'Dharam Pal', (int) 38 => 'Sunita', (int) 39 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 40 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 41 => 'Nos', (int) 42 => 'Raman Kumar', (int) 43 => 'Nos', (int) 44 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 45 => 'Rajesh Kumar', (int) 46 => 'Nos', (int) 47 => 'Sunita Sharma', (int) 48 => 'Sunita Sharma' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'NARESH', (int) 1 => 'Punjab', (int) 2 => 'J.1' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 9.15 p.m.' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Dharam Pal Section 323/34', (int) 1 => 'Probation of Offenders Act', (int) 2 => 'Sunita Sharma.9' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'R.I.', (int) 1 => 'India', (int) 2 => 'India' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Govt' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1055119', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-01-24', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2013 Sunita Sharma …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.</p><p>1. The present appeal has been filed by Sunita Sharma- complainant/aggrieved person, challenging the judgment, dated 17.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, challenging their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, was partly allowed with modification of the order of sentence and they were ordered to be released on probation.</p><p>2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Sunita Rani, lodged a report with the allegations that on 17.4.2002, her CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 2 marriage was solemnized with respondent No.3, Raman Kumar. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, who are father in-law and brother in- law of the appellant, along with her husband harassed her on account of demand of dowry, therefore, she was residing at her parental house at Banjar Bagh, Hoshiarpur. On 19.7.2004, at about 9.15 p.m., when she along with her brother, Rajesh Kumar, mother, Rameshwari, and sister, Monika, was present at her parental house, then her husband, Raman Kumar, bother in-law, Sandeep Kumar, and father in-law, Dharam Pal, along with two un-identified persons, came there. Dharam Pal exhorted that the case levelling the allegation of demand of dowry be withdrawn otherwise they would kill the appellant and other family members of her family. Raman Kumar caught hold her by hair and took out a knife from his pocket and gave blows on her forehead and left arm. When Rajesh Kumar (brother of the appellant) tried to interfere to save Sunita Sharma (appellant), then Raman Kumar (respondent No.3) gave a knife blow to him also. Dharam Pal picked up a stick (Danda) lying there and started beating Sunita Sharma and her brother, Rajesh Kumar. On hearing hue and cry, several people collected at the spot and they rescued the appellant and other members of her family from the clutches of the respondents-accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the above said statement, the case was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet for the CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 3 offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 34, IPC, was presented.</p><p>4. After completion of the trial, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, and ordered to undergo the following sentences: Name of the Offence Sentence In default accused of payment of fine Dharam Pal Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days Raman Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one Kumar month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days Sandeep Section 323/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one Kumar month Section 324/34, IPC. ` 1,000/- RI for one month Section 452, IPC. RI for 2 months and RI for 15 fine of `500/- days 5. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2010, while the appellant, Sunita Sharma, presented Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2010, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Both the said appeals were decided by a common judgment, dated 17.9.2011. The learned Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 4 Sessions Judge, maintained the conviction, however, modified the order of sentence by making the following observations:-</p><p>"5. Lastly, learned defence counsel pleaded that benefit of probation be extended to the accused/appellants as they are facing trial for the last more than seven years. Admittedly, present FIR was lodged on 20.7.2004 and the accused are facing trial for the last more than seven years. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months each u/s 452 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo RI for a period of 15 days each. They were also fined to the tune of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 324/323 IPC separately. According to Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, if requirement of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act are fulfilled, the court instead of sentencing them to any punishment may release them on probation of good conduct under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2007 (1), RCR, Criminal, 605, Guljar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pardesh and 2001 (2) RCR, Criminal, 670, State of Punjab Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others. Legislature by introducing section 360 and 361 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after amendment, intended to reform the certain criminal offenders, where it is possible by giving them benefit of probation. Same view was taken by our Hon'ble High Court in Inder Dutt Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1981, CLR, 379. In view of the law laid down in these citations, appellants are entitled to the concession of probation as they are facing the trial for the last more than seven years. Whereas, as per section 3 of CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 5 Probation of Offenders Act, Court may order to release the offender on probation for any offence punishable with the imprisonment for not more than two years or with fine. The accused are first offenders and belonging to the respectable family and it will not be in the interest of justice to send them behind bars. As such order of sentence dated 3.6.2010 passed by the learned trial court is hereby modified and accused/appellants are ordered to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount, for the period of one year and to give undertaking of good behaviour to the Govt. of India and all citizens of India during the said period and they will not commit breach of peace, failing which they are directed to appear in the court and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so. Probation bonds furnished which have been accepted and attested. Raman Kumar is fined to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and remaining accused i.e. Dharam Pal and Sandeep Kumar are fined to the tune of Rs. 2500/- each. Fine paid. This fine i.e. Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- each) be paid as compensation to the complainant Sunita and her brother Rajesh Kumar. Fine already deposited by the appellants before the trial court be treated as litigation expenses in the present case. With these modifications, appeal stands disposed of."</p><p>6. The appeal filed by the appellant, Sunita Sharma, was disposed of in view of the order passed in the appeal preferred by the respondents-accused.</p><p>7. Learned counsel for the appellant though raised CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 6 various issues with regard to the releasing of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on probation and grant of meagre amount of compensation, but could not substantiate his submissions. He contended that the respondents-accused had acted in a very cruel and unusual manner, therefore, their release on probation was not justified. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant was also on lower side.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and further submitted that the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year vide judgment, dated 17.9.2011. The said period has already expired and during the probation period, the respondents-accused did not violate the terms and conditions of the bonds furnished by them. However, he submitted that without going into the controversy, the respondents-accused are still ready to pay some more compensation to the appellant, Sunita Sharma.</p><p>9. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record.</p><p>10. The respondents-accused were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323/34, 324/34 and 452, IPC, and ordered to undergo sentence of various terms including the fine by the learned Trial Court, in an incident which had occurred CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 7 on 19.7.2004. The respondents-accused preferred the appeal before the Court of Session and while maintaining the conviction, the order of sentence was modified and the respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of `25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. The respondents-accused were directed to furnish an undertaking to be of good behaviour during the probation period. Respondent No.3, Raman Kumar, was ordered to pay a fine of `5,000/- while respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were ordered to pay `2,500/- each and the same was ordered to be treated as compensation and further ordered to be paid to the appellant, Sunita Sharma, and her brother, Rajesh Kumar. The fine already deposited by the respondents-accused before the learned Trial Court was ordered to be treated as litigation expenses.</p><p>11. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the judgment passed by the learned lower Appellate Court with regard to the releasing of the respondents-accused on probation. They were first offenders, belonging to respectable family and the occurrence had taken place with regard to a matrimonial dispute. During the period of probation, the respondents-accused did not violate the terms and conditions of the probation bonds furnished by them. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to disturb the order of releasing the respondents-accused CRA-S-469-SB-2012 (O&M) 8 on probation. However, the appellant/aggrieved person deserves to be granted some more compensation. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to pay `10,000/- each to the appellant, Sunita Sharma. It is made clear that the said amount of `10,000/- each (totaling `30,000/-) would be in addition to the amount which has already been awarded by the learned lower Appellate Court. The respondents-accused shall deposit `10,000/- each before the learned Trial Court within two months of passing of this order and on their doing so, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice to the appellant, Sunita Sharma, and pay the amount to her.</p><p>12. As a sequel to above, the present appeal is partly allowed. In case the respondents/accused fail to deposit the amount as ordered by this Court, the same shall be recovered in accordance with the rules. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) January 24, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1055119' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 34, Section 452, Section 452, Section 452, Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, Section 323/34
ORG: CRA, JUSTICE, DAG, NARESH, Additional Sessions, IPC, CRA, Banjar Bagh, Danda, IPC, IPC, the Offence Sentence, IPC, IPC, IPC, RI, IPC, IPC, IPC, RI, IPC, IPC, IPC, RI, Criminal Appeal No.24, Criminal Appeal No.22, Additional Sessions, Additional CRA-S-469-SB-2012, FIR, the Hon'ble Apex Court, RCR, Criminal, Criminal, State of Punjab Vs, Hon'ble High Court, CLR, Court, CRA, IPC, Trial Court, CRA, the Court of Session, Trial Court, Appellate Court, Court, CRA, Appellate Court, Trial Court, Trial Court, Court, NARESH
CARDINAL: 1, 2 to 4, 2 to 4, 452, 17.4.2002, 2, No.3, 2, two, No.3, 3, 324, 452, 2 to 4, 452, 1,000/-, 1,000/-, 15, 1,000/-, one, 1,000/-, 15, 1,000/-, one, 1,000/-, 15, 2 to 4, 4, 20.7.2004, 452, 500/-, 1, 605, 2, 670, 361, 379, 5, 25,000/-, one, 2500/-, 10,000/-, 5000/-, 6, 2 to 4, 452, 7, 25,000/-, one, No.3, 5,000/-, 2, 4, 2,500/-, 8, 2, 3, 4, 10,000/-, 10,000/-, 30,000/-, 10,000/-
DATE: January 24, 2013, 17.9.2011, 4, 19.7.2004, one month Section 324/34, one month, 2 months, 500/- days, one month, 2 months, one month, 2 months, 2010, 2010, 17.9.2011, two months, a period of, 15 days, 2007, 2001, 1973, 1981, more than two years, the period of one year, 5000/-, one year, 17.9.2011, 19.7.2004, one year, two months, January 24, 2013
PERSON: Sunita Sharma, Versus State, Vikas Kuthiala, Harsimrat Rai, C.L. Sharma, Nos, SANGHI, Sunita Sharma-, Hoshiarpur, Nos, Sunita Rani, Hoshiarpur, Rajesh Kumar, Rameshwari, Monika, Raman Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Dharam Pal, Dharam Pal, Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Sunita Sharma, Raman Kumar, Dharam Pal, Sunita Sharma, Rajesh Kumar, Nos, RI, RI, RI, Sunita Sharma, Hoshiarpur, RI, Guljar Singh Vs, Madhya Pardesh, Singh, Kumar, Dharam Pal, Sunita, Rajesh Kumar, Sunita Sharma, Nos, Raman Kumar, Nos, Sunita Sharma, Rajesh Kumar, Nos, Sunita Sharma, Sunita Sharma
NORP: NARESH, Punjab, J.1
TIME: about 9.15 p.m.
WORK_OF_ART: Dharam Pal Section 323/34, Probation of Offenders Act, Sunita Sharma.9
GPE: R.I., India, India
ORDINAL: first, first
LOC: Govt