Ram Kala vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 19278 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Kala vs State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143352

CRR-1984-2008
         2008 (O&M)                                                     -1-




     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      CRR-1984-2008 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision : 04.11.2024

Ram Kala @ Ram Kumar                                             ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Haryana                                               ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:-   Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral)

J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the

judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated

09.06.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as 'learned tr trial ial Court') in

Criminal Case No. 243-RT 243 RT of 1998, titled as State vs. Ram Kala @ Ram

Kumar,, arising out of FIR No. 546 dated 13.12.1997, registered under

Sections 323, 325 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Rewari, whereby the

petitioner was held guilty for commission of aforementioned offences and was

sentenced to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for one year with

default clause.

clause The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated

11.09.2008, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari 11.09.2008,

(hereinafter referred to as 'learned ' appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal

No. 55 of 2005, 200 titled as Ram Kala @ Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Haryana

whereby while upholding the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143352

CRR-1984-2008 2008 (O&M) -2-

sentence, as passed by the learned trial Court, the appeal of the petitioner was

dismissed.

2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner

did not press the grounds as taken in the revision petit petition ion and restricted his

argument to the extent that benefit of probation be granted to the petitioner.

Since the petitioner is not challenging the impugned judgments passed by the

Court below on their merit and seeking benefit of probation, the sole

consideration ration before this Court is as to whether the prayer made by the

petitioner for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

3. As mentioned above, the petitioner had been held guilty by the

trial Court for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325

and 506 of IPC in the year 2005.

2005 The petitioner had then filed an appeal

before the learned appellate Court but the same had been dismissed in the year

2008.

008. The petitioner had then preferred this revision petition and vide order

dated 20.10.2008, his sentence was suspended during the pendency of the

revision petition before this Court. The petitioner is on bail for the last about

16 years. Much water has flown since then. The present revision petition is

pending since the year 2008.. The petitioner is facing rigors rs of litigation from

the last more than 16 years. The petitioner has already undergone actual

imprisonment a period of 01 month and 17 days and in the intervening period,

he is not involved in any other criminal case. He is leading happy and

peaceful life with his family. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner has

urged that the petitioner is entitled led to the benefit of probation.

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143352

CRR-1984-2008 2008 (O&M) -3-

4. Custody certificate has been filed by the respondent respondent-State, State, as per

which, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 17 days

and he is not involved in any other case. Learned State counsel has no serious

objection to the limited prayer made made by the petitioner.

5. Before considering the prayer made by the petitioner to release

him on probation, let us have a look on the law on this point. T The he aims and

object of the Probation Act came to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case

Jugal Kishore Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1972 AIR (SC) 2522 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 ategories 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 ase 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 individu individual al 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 economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, consi considerable derable 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."

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143352

CRR-1984-2008 2008 (O&M) -4-

6. Reliance can also be placed upon Isher Das v. State of Punjab,

AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1295andArvind Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar

Biswas and others, 1974 AIR (SC) 1818 1818, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court

had taken the similar view. Relevant paragraph of Arvind Mohan Sinha's case

(supra) reads as under:-

under:

"The Probation of Offenders Act is a rreformative eformative 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 socie society ty passes on convicts is relenless. The ignominy commonly associated with a jail term and the social stigma which attached to convicts often render the remedy worse than the disease and the year purposes of punishment stands in the danger of being frustrated.

ed. 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 ing 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 sion 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 m may ay 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 re-education education without the necessity of breaking up the offender's normal life and removing him

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143352

CRR-1984-2008 2008 (O&M) -5-

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)."

7. In view of the ratio of law as laid down in aforecited judgment,

the question that arises before this Court is that as to whether the petitioner is

entitled to the benefit of probation or not ? In the considered opinion of this

Court, the answer to this question question must be in the affirmative.

8. The object underlying the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity "th "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 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 om the possibility of association or close contact with hardened

criminals and their evil influence. Therefore, these beneficial provisions have

to be liberally construed.

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143352

CRR-1984-2008 2008 (O&M) -6-

9. The sole intention of the legislature in passing probation laws is

to give person 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 slature 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

offender on probation, the Court saves him from the stigma of jail life and

also from the contaminating influence of hardened prison inmates. Pro Probation bation

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 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."

10. Therefore, the conjoint and meani meaningful ngful reading of the beneficial

provisions of the Probation Act would reveal that non non-obstante obstante clause

contained in Section 4 that points to the conclusion that the provisions of this

Section would have overriding overriding effect, shall prevail if the conditions described

therein are fulfilled. Meaning thereby, the Court has the ample power to

release the first offender of minor offences on probation, keeping into focus

the nature and manner of the crime, age of the offender, other antecedents and

attending circumstances of the offence instead of committing him to jail.

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143352

CRR-1984-2008 2008 (O&M) -7-

11. Likewise, Section 4 of the Probation Act postulates that when

any person is found guilty of having 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

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 learned State counsel has acknowledged the factual

matrix of the case and legal position.

12. Therefore, in view of the discussion as made above and while

taking into consideration the agony and trauma, which the petitioner has

undergone during protracted trial, appeal, revision, his antecedent,, nature of

offence, totality of other facts and circumstances emanating from the record,

this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served

by sending him again into jail to serve ve out the remaining period of sentence

and instead of sending him to prison, prison, he be released on probation.

probation

Accordingly, it is directed that petitioner be released on probation on his Accordingly,

furnishing personal bond (within one month month) in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with wi

one surety of the like amount before the learned trial Court, subject to the

condition that he would keep the peace and be of good behaviour, for a period

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143352

CRR-1984-2008 2008 (O&M) -8-

of two years year from thee date of passing of this order and shall disclose his

present address and phone phone number before the trial Court in the form of an

affidavit at the time of furnishing bonds. Needless to mention that in case, he

is found to be indulged in any illegal activities, the sentence awarded to him

by the learned trial Court shall stand revived revived.

13. As such,, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed on

merits and the impugned judgments judgment are upheld.. However, the order of

sentence is accordingly modified to the extent and in the manner depicted

herein above.

14. Needless to mention thatt natural consequences and compliance

will follow accordingly.

04.11.2024                                                (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari                                                 JUDGE


          Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes/No

          Whether reportable                              Yes/No




                                      8 of 8