Reserved On : 03.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2025 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On : 03.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 July, 2025

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh

1 2025:HHC:23115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

.

                                            Cr. Revision No. : 4200 of 2013





                                            Reserved on                :     03.07.2025
                                            Decided on                 :     17.07.2025





    Churamani                                                               ...Petitioner

                                                Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh                                               ...Respondent

    Coram                 r

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the petitioner : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.

    For the respondent                  :        Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
                                                 General, with Mr. Tejasvi
                                                 Sharma, Additional Advocate




                                                 General, and    Mr.   Rohit
                                                 Sharma,  Deputy    Advocate





                                                 General.

    Virender Singh, Judge.

Petitioner-Churamani has preferred the present

revision petition, against the judgment, dated 2nd

December, 2013, passed by the Court of learned Sessions

Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to

as the 'Appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 2025:HHC:23115

2011, titled as Churamani versus State of Himachal

Pradesh.

.

2. Vide judgment, dated 2nd December, 2013, the

learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the

petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the convict'), which he

had preferred against the judgment of conviction, dated 1 st

October, 2011 and order of sentence, dated 21 st October,

2011, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Court No. III, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal

Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in

Police Challan No. 2-II/11/2008, titled as State of

Himachal Pradesh versus Churamani.

3. The learned trial Court, vide judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, has

convicted the convict for the offence punishable under

Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), as under:

(i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/-;

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/-; and

3 2025:HHC:23115

(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

.

three months and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/-.

In default of payment of fine, the convict has been directed to further undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, each.

The learned trial Court has also directed the sentences, so

awarded, to run concurrently.

4. During the pendency of the revision petition, on

3rd July, 2025, the convict, vide his separate statement,

has stated that he does not want to press the present

petition, against the judgment of conviction, dated 1 st

October, 2011, however, he has prayed that he may kindly

be released on probation.

5. The judgment of conviction, dated 1st October,

2011 and the order of sentence, dated 21st October, 2011,

passed by the learned trial Court, perused.

6. As per the said order, the learned trial Court,

although, has considered the question of releasing the

convict on probation, but, in view of the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh versus State of Himachal

Pradesh, reported in (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 82,

4 2025:HHC:23115

the said relief has been ordered to be declined, whereas,

the learned Appellate Court has not bothered to consider

.

this question and simply, dismissed the appeal.

7. In this case, the report of the Probation Officer

has been called for. In the report, the Probation Officer

has recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the

convict, vide his report, dated 31st May, 2025.

8. It is worthwhile to record herein that by moving

CrMP No. 2610 of 2025, the convict has placed on record

the compromise, which has allegedly taken place between

the convict and the complainant. In the absence of the

complainant, there is no occasion for this Court to

comment upon the contents of the compromise. As such,

the same cannot be taken on record. Accordingly, the said

application is dismissed.

9. Now, the question, which arises for

determination, before this Court, is about the fact as to

whether the relief of probation can be extended to the

convict.

10. As stated above, the learned trial Court, in this

case, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

5 2025:HHC:23115

Court, in Dalbir Singh's case (supra), to decline the relief

of probation, to the convict.

.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dalbir Singh's

case (supra), has categorically excluded Section 304-A IPC.

Relevant paragraphs-13 and 14 of the judgment, are

reproduced, as under:

"13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC

as attracting the benevolent provisions of

Section 4 of the P.O. Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A

professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that

he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the

pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance think that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need

not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.

6 2025:HHC:23115

14. Thus, bestowing our serious consideration on the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant we express our

.

inability to lean to the benevolent provision to

Section 4 of the P.O. Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."

12. Even, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that the power of the Court to

extend the benefit of probation, depends upon the nature

of offence committed. In this regard, relevant paragraphs-

8 to 10, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

"8. Parliament made it clear that only if the court forms the opinion that it is expedient to release him on probation for his good conduct regard being had to the circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which cannot

be sidelined in forming the said opinion is "the nature of the offence."

9. Thus Parliament has left it to the court to decide when and how the court should form

such opinion. It provided sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the court to be expedient. The word "expedient"

had been thoughtfully employed by the Parliament in the section so as to mean it as "apt and suitable to the end in view". In Black's Law Dictionary the word expedient is defined as "suitable and appropriate for accomplishment of a specified object" besides the other meaning referred to earlier. In State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri , AIR (1974) SC 2233, a three Judge Bench of this Court has considered the word "expedient". Learned Judges have observed in paragraph 21 thus:

(SCC p. 145)

7 2025:HHC:23115

"Again, the word 'expedient' used in this provisions, has several shades of meaning. In one dictionary sense, 'expedient' (adj.) means 'apt and suitable to the end in view', 'practical

.

and efficient'; 'politic'; 'profitable'; 'advisable',

'fit, proper and suitable to the circumstances of the case'. In another shade, it means a device 'characterized by mere utility rather than

principle conducive to special advantage rather than to what is universally right' (see Webster's New International Dictionary)."

10. It was then held that the court must

construe the said word in keeping with the context and object of the provision in its widest amplitude. Here the word "expedient" is used in Section 4 of the P.O. Act in the context of casting a duty on the court to take into account

"the circumstances of the case including the

nature of the offence.........". This means Section 4 can be resorted to when the court considers the circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the offence, and the court forms its opinion that it is suitable and

appropriate for accomplishing a specified object that the offender can be released on probation of good conduct."

13. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in

Dalbir Singh's case (supra), has again been considered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State through Central

Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch,

Chandigarh versus Sanjiv Bhalla and another, reported

in (2015) 13 Supreme Court Cases 444. Relevant

paragraph-28, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:

"28. To sum up:

8 2025:HHC:23115

28.1. For awarding a just sentence, the trial Judge must consider the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and the provisions on probation in the Criminal Procedure Code;

.

28.2 When it is not possible to release a convict on probation, the trial Judge must record his or her reasons;

28.3. The grant of compensation to the victim of a crime is equally a part of just sentencing;

28.4. When it is not possible to grant

compensation to the victim of a crime, the trial Judge must record his or her reasons; and

28.5. The Trial Judge must always be alive to alternative methods of a mutually satisfactory

disposition of a case."

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paul George

versus State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2008) 4

Supreme Court Cases 185, has released a person, who

has been convicted, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. It

would be profitable to reproduce relevant paragraph-12 of

the said judgment, as under:

"12. This litigation has been going on for the last 20 years and has been fought tenaciously through various courts, we are also told that the appellant who has had a good career throughout but for this one aberration has since been dismissed from service on account of his conviction. We, therefore, while dismissing the appeal, feel that the ends of justice would be met if we direct that the appellant be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on conditions to be imposed by the trial court. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms."

9 2025:HHC:23115

15. This Court, in cases, titled as Ram Rattan

versus State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 1989 (1)

.

Sim.L.C. 359, and State of H.P. versus Khushal Singh &

Anr., reported in 1997 (2) Cur. L.J. (HP) 235, has

released the persons, on probation, who had been

convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.

16. Similarly, in Criminal Revision No. 151 of

2011, titled as Nand Kishore versus State of Himachal

Pradesh, decided on 4th October, 2016, this Court has

released a person, who was convicted, for the offences,

punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.

17. In view of the decisions, as referred to above,

there is no legal hesitation for this Court to extend the

benefit of probation, under Section 4 of the Probation of

Offender's Act, to the convict.

18. The report of the Probation Officer perused.

19. Perusal of the report of the Probation Officer

shows that the convict is the first offender, the offence

committed by him is not premeditated one and no

subsequent offence has been stated to be committed by

him.

10 2025:HHC:23115

20. The Probation Officer has specifically mentioned

that the conduct of the convict, during past years, in the

.

society, is good. No other case has been found to be

registered against him.

21. The offences, for which, the convict has been

convicted, are not punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. The convict is having the permanent abode in

District Mandi, as per the report of the Probation Officer.

There is nothing on the file to demonstrate that after the

incident, upon which, the FIR was registered against the

convict, any other incident, had taken place. The convict

has already faced the agony of the trial, including the

pendency of the appeal, for the last seventeen years.

22. Our Criminal Jurisprudence System is

reformatory in nature. With the passage of time, it has

been realized that sending the first offender to jail, to

undergo substantive sentence, does not produce good

results, as, the first offender/convict, sometimes, may

come in contact with the hardened criminals.

23. The probation is a kind of non-custodial

sentence, by giving an opportunity to the convict to reform

11 2025:HHC:23115

himself, while abiding by certain conditions, imposed by

the Court, for a certain period. It is a reformatory measure

.

to achieve the object, by giving an opportunity to the

convict, to reform himself, instead of directing him to

undergo substantive sentence.

24. The convict is the first offender and the sole

bread earner of his family. Rejecting the prayer of the

convict to release him on probation, would amount to

punishing his family members, for the offences, committed

by the convict.

25. Considering the nature of the offences, this

Court is of the view that it would be expedient to release

the convict on probation of good conduct, instead of

directing him to undergo substantive sentence, as imposed

by the learned trial Court.

26. Considering all these facts, the revision petition

of the convict is dismissed against the judgment of

conviction, however, in view of the discussions made

above, the order of sentence is ordered to be modified.

Instead of directing the convict to undergo the substantive

sentence, he is directed to be released on probation of good

12 2025:HHC:23115

conduct, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

₹ 30,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the

.

satisfaction of the learned trial Court, to keep peace and be

of good behaviour, for a period of two years and to receive

the substantive sentence, as and when, called upon to do

so, during the period of two years.

27. The convict is also directed to deposit a sum of

₹ 6,000/-, which shall be in addition to the fine amount,

already deposited by him, in this case, with the learned

trial Court, within a period of one month from today. The

said amount of ₹ 6,000/- shall be paid to all the injured

persons, in equal shares, as compensation, by the learned

trial Court, after issuing notices to them, in this regard.

28. It is clarified that in case of violation of any of

the conditions, so imposed, including the terms and

conditions of the requisite bonds, the order of sentence

shall revive automatically, without reference to this Court.

In that eventuality, the convict is directed to surrender

before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive

sentence.

13 2025:HHC:23115

29. In view of the above, the revision petition is

partly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

.

are also disposed of accordingly.

                                               ( Virender Singh )
                                                     Judge
    July 17, 2025
          ( rajni )




                         r         to