The single judge bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Inder Vs state of Haryana held that the essential objective of sentencing is to permit the offenders to reform, the failure on the part of the Court to keep that in mind is likely to defeat one of the laudable objects of sentencing.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the head constable received information regarding the admission of Kamlesh to the civil hospital, who suffered injuries in a quarrel. After that, the statement of Kamlesh was recorded in which she stated that she is a laborer and her husband is paralyzed due to which she is only responsible for her family. one day, her husband told her brother-in-law Inder (petitioner herein) that water is seeping in the foundation of their bathroom, due to which the wall may fall. Therefore, he asked him to separate the water in the drain by fixing a bend in it. In response, Inder started acting inappropriately with the complainant's husband and refusing to do it. He began using foul language with the complainant and began beating her with a lathi when she attempted to silence him. She fractured her right hand when he struck it with a lathi. Inder also struck Pinki with a lathi as she attempted to save her. The complainant made a loud noise. Meanwhile, the wife of Inder also started slapping them. After which, her neighbors rescued the complainant and her daughter from the clutches of the accused. the accused also threatened to complain about informing anything to the police.
A prima facie case punishable under Sections 323, 325, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was found to be made out against the accused persons.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he has instructions to give up the challenge to the judgment of conviction concurrently recorded against him by both the Courts below and he restricts his argument to the quantum of sentence only. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in prison for the past 6 years and has already faced the protracted agony of a criminal trial. Further, the petitioner is a laborer and has 3 children which are totally dependent on him. It is further argued that the petitioner has no prior convictions and that, in accordance with Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C. "), the petitioner is qualified to be released on probation for good behavior given his age, character, and background, including the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the offense has been fully proved by the prosecution so, there is no justification as to why the benefit of probation should be given to the accused
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court while relying upon the judgments titled, Om Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana, State through CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chandigarh Versus Sanjiv Bhalla, and Uday Singh, and another Versus State of Haryana defines the concept of Probation and explains how is it important.
The court stated that the mandate of Section 360 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 contemplate that in case the offenses are not heinous or grievous, the law should take recourse to extend certain indulgence to the first-time offenders. The object of the said Act and the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure offer an opportunity for an accused for mending himself without compromising the deterrent effect of law and sentencing. Punishment is not to be imposed always as a measure of imposing punitive punishment intended to confine a person in custody for each and every offense. The object of sentencing is also reformative and to assess whether a convict displays traits of a hardened criminal beyond reform or has potential for reform. A person must not necessarily be labeled as a criminal for having committed a crime. Thus, an element of the reformative theory of sentencing comes into the picture. The same offers an opportunity to an offender to live in mainstream society. It was also held that the court should take into consideration various factors including social, educational, physical, and psychological circumstances of an accused; the gravity, nature, and manner of committing the offense; the consequences, the social reaction of the offense; the antecedents and tendencies of an accused and assesses the punishment that is ought to be deterrent, reformative or proportionate. Such an exercise was once undertaken wherein the Court has reposed faith in imposing reformative punishment as probation etc., it should not be interfered with unless the punishment disregards the parameters blatantly.
The hon’ble court after considering that it has not been proven that the petitioner is a previous convict or that he is a habitual offender. Also, the petitioner is now 50 years of age and in the aforesaid circumstances, he would have sufficient responsibilities to be discharged towards his children. Besides, the antecedents or the subsequent conduct of the petitioner do not show that he is a habitual offender and is incapable to reform. Taking into consideration the position of law in relation to probation, the object of sentencing, and also the mitigating circumstances pertaining to the petitioner noticed above, the present criminal revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released for good conduct for a period of one year on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
CASE NAME- Inder Vs state of Haryana
CITATION- CRR-44-2020
DATE- 18.08.2022
CORUM- Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
