Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem @ Nanhe Nai vs The State Of M.P. on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
1
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
I N T H E H I G H C O U RT O F M A D H YA P R A D E S H
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. SHARMA
ON THE 19TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1781 of 2000
Vikram Singh Gurjar
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
..................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Parimal Chaturvedi with Shri Anuj Pathak, Shri Roopak Saini and
Shri Akshay Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
..................................................................................................
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1916 of 2000
Prem @ Nanhe Nai
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
..................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri G.S. Baghel with Ms. Krishna Singh Chandel - Advocates for the
appellant.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
..................................................................................................
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 9/20/2025
6:38:07 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
2
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2172 of 2000
Praveen Singh Jadhon
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
..................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Parimal Chaturvedi with Shri Anuj Pathak, Shri Roopak Saini and
Shri Akshay Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
..................................................................................................
Reserved on : 04.09.2025
Pronounced on : 19.09.2025
..................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
With consent, arguments are heard finally.
These Criminal Appeals under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been preferred on behalf of the
appellants, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentece
dated 30.06.2000 in Sessions Trial No.132 of 1997 (State of MP Vs.
Kailash @ Sagar & Others) passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Beohari, District-Shahdol (MP) [(arising out of committal
order dated 16.07.1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
Class, Beohari, Shahdol in Criminal Case No.112/1997)], whereby
learned Trial Judge found the appellants guilty for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 397 and 120-B of IPC and directed
them to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment & to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment & to pay
fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations. All the
sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant was
robbed by the accused persons on the date of incident.
3. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report
lodged, FIR bearing Crime No.3/1997 was registered against the
accused persons including the present appellants at Police Station
Beohari, District Shahdol for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 395, 397, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
4. The Investigating Officer during investigation visited the
place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and even recorded the
statement of witnesses and after completing the investigation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 395,
397, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
5. That further after submission of charge-sheet before Court
of learned Magistrate the said case was committed to the Court of
Session wherein it was registered as Sessions Trial No.132 of 1997.
After committal, the Trial Court framed charges against the
accused/appellant under Sections 395, 397, 120-B of IPC, wherein the
accused/appellants denied the charges leveled against them and
claimed to be tried.
6. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses,
statement of accused/appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was
recorded by the Trial Court explaining the entire evidence.
Appellants/accused denied the charges and entire prosecution story
was said to be wrong and concocted and learned Trial Court
appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
prosecution and defence, found the appellants guilty for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 397, 120-B of the IPC and
sentenced them as mentioned preceding paragraph No.1. Being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellants have preferred
these criminal appeals before this Court.
7. It is submitted by learned counsels appearing for the
appellants that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Central Act) is
applicable in the State of Madhya. Thus, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that it is upon the discretion of the Court to grant
benefit of the Act.
8. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsels
appearing for the appellants that they do not want to press the appeals
on merits i.e. they do not want to challenge the conviction of the
appellants recorded by the Trial Court under Sections 397, 120-B of
IPC, but have prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that
the incident had taken place in the year 1997 i.e. almost 28 years ago.
It is further submitted that appellants have already served out more
than four years' incarceration so far. There is no further criminal
antecedent(s) against the appellants. It is further submitted that the
delay in trial deprives the right of the appellants of speedy trial and
they may be given benefit of first offender and appellants may be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herein after
referred as the Act of 1958). It is further submitted that appellants are
first time offender and are not previously convicted in any case. It is
further submitted that it is the Court which may consider the benefit
of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the accused-appellants. On the
aforesaid pretext, it is prayed that appellants' jail sentence may be
reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone by them
as no fruitful purpose would get served by sending or keeping them
behind the bars again.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court and has
submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed
by the Trial Court and after appreciating the evidence produced by the
prosecution, the learned Trial Court has rightly found the appellants
guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the
appeals. It is further submitted that the benefit of Section 4 of the Act
of 1958 could be extended to the accused-appellant(s) on certain
stipulations as specified in Section 4 of the Act of 1958.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
10. Though, the appellants have not assailed the findings of
conviction on merits and have confined the submissions only to the
question of sentence on the basis of incarceration period served out by
the appellants/accused which is more than four years' so far and also
the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1997 i.e. almost
28 years; this Court is nonetheless under a legal obligation to
scrutinize the correctness and sanctity of the conviction recorded by
the trial Court. On this aspect, I have carefully perused the judgment
of the trial Court and the evidence adduced during trial. The
prosecution case is not only corroborated by the testimony of the
witnesses, but also stands duly supported by other materials placed on
record. The trial Court, while appreciating the entire evidence in its
proper perspective, has arrived at a well-reasoned finding of guilt
against the appellants. Upon independent reappraisal, I find that the
conclusion so recorded by the trial Court is based on cogent reasoning
and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the findings of conviction of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
the appellants under the aforesaid provisions of law are hereby
upheld.
11. After considering the arguments advanced by the parties
and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds
that except apart the merits of the case, so far as the prayer of learned
counsel for the appellants for providing benefits of Section 4 of the
Act of 1958 is concerned, it is essential to discuss the legal position
and law propounded by the Apex Court.
12. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
are extracted hereunder:
"3. Power of court to release certain offenders
after admonition.- "Where any person is found guilty of
having committed an offence punishable under Section
379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any
offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than
two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian
Penal code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is
proved against him and the Court by which the person is
found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the nature of the
offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, the Court may,
instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing
him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release
him after due admonition.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this Section,
previous conviction against a person shall include any
previous order made against him under this Section or
Section 4.
4. Power of Court to release certain offenders
on probation of good conduct.- (1) When any person is
found guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the
Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion
that, having regard to the circumstances of the case
including the nature of the offence and the character of the
offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of
good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, the court may,
instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct
that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or
without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when
called upon during such period, not exceeding three years,
as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the
peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the Court shall not direct such release
of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his
surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
occupation in the place over which the Court exercises
jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during
the period for which he enters into the bond."
13. That, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ved
Prakash vs State of Haryana, (1981) 1 SCC 447 : AIR 1981 SC
643 while discussing on the duty of Bench and Bar regarding
compliance of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure read with
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was pleased to observe
as under:
"The offence, for which conviction has been
rendered, is one which will be attracted by S. 360 or at any
rate the Probation of offenders Act, 1958. The materials
before us are imperfect because the Trial Court has been
perfunctory in discharging its sentencing functions. We
must emphasise that sentencing an accused person is a
sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or
mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court
should have collected materials necessary to help award a
just punishment in the circumstances. The social
background and the personal factors of the crime-doer are
very relevant although in practice Criminal Courts have
hardly paid attention to the social milieu or the personal
circumstances of the offender. Even if S. 360 Cr.P.C. is not
attracted, it is the duty of the sentencing Court to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on
punishment with a rehabilitating slant. The absence of such
materials in the present case has left us with little
assistance even from the counsel. Indeed members of the
bar also do not pay sufficient attention to these legislative
provisions which relate to dealing with an offender in such
manner that he becomes a non-offender. We emphasise this
because the legislation which relate to amelioration in
punishment have been regarded as 'Minor Acts' and,
therefore, of little consequence. This is a totally wrong
approach and even if the Bar does not help, the Bench
must fulfil the humanising mission of sentencing implicit
in such enactments as the Probation of offenders Act."
14. Further, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal vs State
of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444, while discussing the purpose and
object of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, has observed in para no.
4, as follows:
"4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of
the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology.
It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the
object of criminal law is more to reform the individual
offender than to punish him. Broadly stated the Act
distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those
above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having
committed an offence punishable with death or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser
offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the
age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to
release them after admonition or on probation of good
conduct, subject to the condition laid down in the
appropriate provision of the Act, in the case of offenders
below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the
court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is
satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the
case, including the nature of the offence and the character
of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under
Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act."
15. That it is also noteworthy that the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in the case of Subhash
Chand vs State of U.P; [2015 Law Suit (All) 1343], has emphatically
laid down the need to apply the law of probation and give benefit of
the beneficial legislation to accused persons in appropriate cases. The
court issued following directions to all trial courts and appellate
courts:
"It appears that the aforesaid beneficial legislation
has been lost sight of and even the Judges have practically
forgotten this provision of law. Thus, before parting with
the case, this Court feels that I will be failing in discharge
of my duties, if a word of caution is not written for the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
courts and the appellate courts. The Registrar General of
this Court is directed to circulate copy of this Judgment to
all the District Judges of U.P., who shall in turn ensure
circulation of the copy of this order amongst all the judicial
officers working under him and shall ensure strict
compliance of this Judgment. The District Judges in the
State are also directed to call for reports every months
from all the courts, i.e. trial courts and appellate courts
dealing with such matters and to state as to in how many
cases the benefit of the aforesaid provisions have been
granted to the accused. The District Judges are also
directed to monitor such cases personally in each monthly
meeting. The District Judges concerned shall send monthly
statement to the Registrar General as to in how many cases
the trial court/appellate court has granted the benefit of the
aforesaid beneficial legislation to the accused. A copy of
this order be placed before the Registrar General for
immediate compliance."
16. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra
vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand; (2004) 7 SCC 659 has
extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the
appellants, and observed as under:
"The learned counsel appearing for the accused
submitted that the accident is of the year 1990. The parties
are educated and neighbors. The learned counsel,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
therefore, prayed that benefit of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 may be granted to the accused. The prayer made
on behalf of the accused seems to be reasonable. The
accident is more than ten years old. The dispute was
between the neighbors over a trivial issue of claiming of
drainage. The accident took place in a fit of anger. All the
parties educated and also distantly related. The accident is
not such as to direct the accused to undergo sentence of
imprisonment. In our opinion, it is a fit case in which the
accused should be released on probation by directing them
to execute a bond of one year for good behaviour."
17. That coming to the point of desirability of extending the
benefit of Probation Act to the accused/appellants in Sitaram Paswan
and Anr vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3534, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court held as under:-
"For exercising the power which is discretionary,
the Court has to consider circumstances of the case, the
nature of the offence and the character of the offender.
While considering the nature of the offence, the Court
must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the
impact which the offence had on the victim. Thebenefit
available to the accused under Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act is subject to the limitation embodied in
the provisions and the word "may" clearly indicates that
the discretion vests with the Court whether to release the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
offender in exercise of the powers under Section 3 or 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, having regard to the nature
of the offence and the character of the offender and overall
circumstances of the case. The powers under Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act vest with the Court when
any person is found guilty of the offence committed, not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This power
can be exercised by the Courts while finding the person
guilty and if the Court thinks that having regard to the
circumstances of the case, including the nature of the
offence and the character of the offender, benefit should be
extended to the accused, the power can be exercised by the
Court even at the appellate or revisional stage and also by
this Court while hearing appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India."
18. That Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is applicable where a
person is found guilty of committing an offence where punishment is
neither life sentence nor death. The Court may release such an
accused on probation of good conduct on his furnishing a bond as
mentioned in the Section. The Court in applying the provisions of this
Section is also required to consider the circumstances of the case,
character of the offender and nature of the offence before exercising
its discretion.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
19. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1958
thus clearly indicate that Section 4 of the Act of 1958 does not create
any distinction between the category of offenders and the provision of
the said Section can be made applicable in any case where the
offender is found guilty for committing an offence which is not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Incidentally certain
exceptions have been indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as in
the case of Smt. Devki Versus State of Harayana; 1979 (3) SCC 760
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that benefit of Section 4 of
the Act of 1958 could not be extended to a culprit who was found
guilty of abducting a teen-aged girl and forcing her to sexual
submission with criminal motive. Similarly in the case reported in
1980 (4) SCC 669 in Re: State of Maharashtra Versus Natwar Lal
Damodar Das Soni, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to extend the
benefit of the Act of 1958 to an accused found guilty of gold
smuggling.
20. Similarly, in the case of Subhash Vs. State of U.P.,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.642 of 2008 on 05.10.2023, whereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) inclined
to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 to an accused found guilty of
offence under Sections 392, 397 of IPC and sentencing the
appellant/accused for seven years with fine in both the sections.
21. That it is noteworthy that the appellants are facing the
agony for the last 28 years as the incident had taken place way back in
the year 1997 and there is no any criminal antecedent of the
accused/appellants during these years. Apart from that,
accused/appellants have already served out the actual jail sentence for
more than a period of four years' so far in this case.
22. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I am
of the view that the benefit of provision of the Act of 1958 should be
provided to the accused/appellants.
23. In the light of the above discussion, as far as it relates
with the conviction of the accused/appellants is maintained but the
sentence is modified. Instead of sending the appellants to jail, they are
given benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
and they are directed to file two sureties each to the tune of Rs
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each along with personal
bonds before Trial Court concerned and also an undertaking to the
effect that they shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the
period of two years from today. The said bonds are to be filed by the
accused/appellants within a period of two months from the date of
this judgment.
24. In case of breach of any of the above conditions,
the appellants shall be taken into custody and shall have to undergo
sentence awarded to them.
25. Accused Prem @ Nanhe Nai (appellant in CRA
No.1916/2000) and accused Praveen Singh Jadhon (appellant in CRA
No.2172/2000) are on bail. While as per the averments made in I.A.
No.21303/2025 filed in CRA No.1781/2000, it reveals that accused
Vikram Singh Gurjar is in jail, therefore, he be released in this case
forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
26. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeals
are partly allowed and disposed of.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47250
CRA No.1781-2000, CRA No.1916-2000, CRA No.2172-2000
27. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this
judgment to the Court concerned for information and necessary
compliance.
28. Record of the Trial Court, if available, shall also be sent
back to the Trial Court concerned.
29. Certified copy as per rules.
(B.P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
