Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081765
CRR No. 51 of 2023 (O&M) -1--
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:081765
081765
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 51 of 2023 (O&M)
Reserved on : 01.07.2024
Pronounced on : 03.07.2024
Virender ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Sunny Tyagi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Nidhi Garg, AAG, Haryana.
None for respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant challenging the judgment dated 02.05.2022, passed by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in Criminal Appeal
No. 142 of 2020, titled as Ayub and others vs. State of Haryana
Haryana,, whereby the
appeal filed by the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, had been partly allowed and while setting aside
the said judgment and
and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the
accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were ordered to be released on probation on
furnishing personal bonds of peace and good behavior in the sum of
Rs. 25,000/-
25,000/ each for a period of one year.
r.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081765
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:081765
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Virender had got
registered an FIR bearing No. 1397 dated 11.10.2014 against the private
respondents under Sections 323, 325, 341, 34 of IPC at Police Station City
Panipat with the allegations that the accused persons had wrongfully
restrained the complainant and caused hurt to him as well as to Dharmender
and Rajwant. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the
Court. Charges against the accused persons were framed under Sections 323,
325 and 341 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses apart from
placing on record some documentary evidence. Thereafter, the statements of
the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and all the
incriminating evidence was put before the accused, which they denied and
stated that they would lead defence evidence. However, no defence evidence
was led by them.
4. The trial Court, after appraising the entire material placed on
record as well as after hearing the arguments addressed by the parties, held the
accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 guilty for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 325 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of
one year. Aggrieved from the same, the accused persons had preferred an
appeal before the appellate Court, which was partly allowed by passing the
impugned order and the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were ordered to be
released on probation as mentioned above. Aggrieved of the impugned
judgment of the appellate Court, the petitioner, who was the complainant of
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081765
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:081765
the FIR, has come up before this Court by filing the present revision
challenging the judgment of the appellate Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment
passed by the appellate Court granting probation to the accused persons is not
sustainable in the eyes of law as the appellate Court has not rightly
appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. It is further submitted that as
many as 21 injuries were caused to three injured including complainant, which
included grievous injury but the appellate Court had ignored the medical
evidence and the testimony of PW-1 Dr. Rakesh and PW-2 Dr. Shalini Mittal
and had also ignored the MLRs Ex. PW-2/A, PW-2/C and PW-2/D and had
granted benefit of probation to the accused persons. It is therefore, argued
that the appellate Court had erred in granting benefit of probation to the
accused persons while partly allowing their appeal. Hence, it is urged that the
revision petition deserved to be allowed and the impugned judgment is liable
to be set aside.
6. Learned State counsel, while admitting the factual position, has
also argued on the line of the petitioner and has submitted that the appellate
Court has committed grave error in granting benefit of probation to the
accused persons.
7. The accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are duly served but
there is no representation on their behalf.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
State counsel at considerable length and have also gone through the record
carefully.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081765
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:081765
9. Before delving into this point as well as before considering the
prayer made by the petitioner to set aside the impugned judgment passed by
the appellate Court releasing the accused persons on probation, let us have a
look on the law on this point. The aims and object of the Probation Act came
to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of
Bihar, 1972 AIR (SC) 2522. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the
scope of the Probation Act had held as under:-
"The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a
view to provide for the release of offenders of certain
categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters
connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the
conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a
result of their association with hardened criminals of mature
age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consequence with
the present trend in the field of penology, according to which
effort should be made to bring about correction and
reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to
retributive justice. Modern criminal jurisprudence recognizes
that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are
the product of socio-economic milieu. Although not much can
be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been
laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of
very serious offences and of preventing their association with
hardened criminals."
10. Reliance can also be placed upon Isher Das v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1295 and Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar
Biswas and others, 1974 AIR (SC) 1818, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court
had taken the similar view. Relevant paragraph of Arvind Mohan Sinha's
case (supra) reads as under:-
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081765
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:081765
"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and
its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the
indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in
society. A jail term should normally be enough to wipe out the
stain of guilt but the sentence which the society passes on
convicts is relenless. The ignominy commonly associated with
a jail term and the social stigma which is attached to convicts
often render the remedy worse than the disease and the purpose
of punishment stands in the danger of being frustrated. In
recalcitrant cases punishment has to be deterrent so that others
similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking
to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of
crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being
socially stick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal
tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors
induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation of
Offenders Act recognises the importance of environmental
influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy
whereby the offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in
society. An attitude of social defiance and recklessness which
comes to a convict who, after a jail term, is apt to think that he
has no more to lose or fear may breed a litter of crime. The
object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to nip that attitude
in the bud. Winifred A Sikin describes probation as a system
which provides a means of re-education without the necessity
of breaking up the offender's normal life and removing him
from the natural surroundings of his home. (English Juvenile
Courts (1938) page 162) Edwin R. Sutherland raises it to a
status of a convicted offender. (Principles of Criminology, 4th
Edn. (1947) page 383)."
11. In view of the ratio of law as laid down in afore-cited judgments,
the question that arises before this Court is that as to whether the appellate
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081765
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:081765
Court was justified in granting probation to the accused persons or not? In the
considered opinion of this Court, the answer to this question must be in the
affirmative.
12. The object underlying the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity "the Probation Act") and
Sections 360 & 361 of Cr.PC, is that the first offenders be not sent to jail for
the commission of less serious offences, on account of grave risk to their
attitude to life to which they are likely to be exposed as a result of their
association with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates of the jail. Their
stay in jail in such circumstances might well attract them towards a life of
crime instead of reforming them. This would clearly cause more harm than to
reform them, and for that reason, it would perhaps also be to an extent
prejudicial to the larger interests of the society as a whole. Perhaps that was
the reason that the mandatory injunction against imposition of sentence of
imprisonment has been embodied in Section 6 of the Probation Act. This
mandate is inspired by the desire to keep the young delinquent/first offenders
away from the possibility of association or close contact with hardened
criminals and their evil influence. Therefore, these beneficial provisions have
to be liberally construed.
13. The sole intention of the legislature in passing probation laws is
to give person of a particular type of chance of reformation, which they would
not get if sent to prison. The types of persons, who are in the contemplation of
the legislature under the probation law are those who are not hardened or
dangerous criminals, but those who have committed offences under some
momentary weakness of character or some tempting situation. By placing the
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081765
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:081765
offender on probation, the Court saves him from the stigma of jail life and
also from the contaminating influence of hardened prison inmates. Probation
also serves another purpose, which is quite significant though of secondary
importance. It helps in eliminating overcrowding in jails by keeping many
offenders away from the prison.Section 360 Cr.P.C. deals with order to
release the accused on probation of good conduct or after admonition, whereas
Section 361 Cr.P.C. provides that "where in any case the Court could have
dealt with an accused person under Section 360 or under the provisions of the
Probation Act, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment, the special
reasons for not having done so."
14. Therefore, the conjoint and meaningful reading of the beneficial
provisions of the Probation Act would reveal that non-obstante clause
contained in Section 4 that points to the conclusion that the provisions of this
Section would have overriding effect, shall prevail if the conditions described
therein are fulfilled. Meaning thereby, that the Court has the ample power to
release the first offender of minor offences on probation, keeping into focus
the nature & manner of the crime, age of the offender, other antecedents and
attending circumstances of the offence instead of committing him to jail.
15. Likewise, Section 4 of the Probation Act postulates that 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 the 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
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081765
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:081765
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. The appellate Court had observed that the accused persons
were neither hardened criminals nor habitual offenders. They had families to
support. They were repentant of their acts. The learned State counsel has
acknowledged the factual matrix of the case and legal position.
16. In view of the discussion as made above and also considering the
attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that taking into consideration the agony and trauma, which the
accused persons have undergone during protracted trial, appeal, revision, their
antecedents, nature of offence, totality of other facts & circumstances
emanating from the record, no useful purpose would be served by sending
them again into jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence.
Accordingly, finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment,
passed by the appellate Court, which is well reasoned one and based on settled
proposition of law, the present revision petition is dismissed on merits and the
impugned judgment of the appellate Court is upheld.
03.07.2024 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
