Kala Singh vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 4909 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kala Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 November, 2025

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH
245
                                         CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)
                                         Date of decision: 10.11.2025

Kala Singh                                                   ...Petitioner(s)

                                    VERSUS

State of Punjab                                               ...Respondent(s)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Present :-    Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

              Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG Punjab.

              Mr. Gurmeet S. Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

                              *****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition had been filed against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2017 passed by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, in case bearing Challan No.94-1 of

19.03.2012 in FIR bearing No. 252 dated 28.09.2012 registered under

Sections 279/337/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station

City, Ferozepur as well as the dismissal of the appeal vide judgment dated

18.05.2017 passed by Addnl Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

2. Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner has been filed today in

the Court and the same is taken on record.

3. Briefly summarized, the case of the prosecution is that the

present FIR was registered against the accused, on the statement of one

Lakhwinder Singh, on the allegations that on 26.09.12, he alongwith Gurjit

1 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

Singh, son of Mohinder Singh were going back to their village at about

8/8.30 pm, from Ferozepur Cantt. and when they reached a little ahead of

Udham Singh Chowk, then a white colour car make Swift bearing RC

No.DL8CR 0904, came from the opposite side at a very high speed, which

was driven by Kala Singh, son of Falak Singh, in a rash and negligent

manner, without blowing horn and the driver struck the car in the motorcycle

bearing RC No.PB05-S-1639, being driven by the complainant. It is further

averred in the statement that as a result of collision, complainant and his

companion Gurjit Singh, received multiple injuries and they both fell on the

ground and they were got admitted in civil hospital, Ferozepur. It is further

averred that due to severe nature of injuries, they were referred to GGS

Medical College, Faridkot, wherefrom, he was sent back to civil hospital,

Ferozepur, after giving necessary medical treatment. However, Gurjit Singh

remained admitted in GGS Medical College for treatment. On the basis of

this statement dt.28.09.12, present FIR was registered against the accused

and the investigation was initiated. On completion of investigation, challan

was presented in the court."

4. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined

HC Nirmal Singh as PW1, Lakhwinder Singh, complainant/injured as PW2,

SI Harbhajan Singh, IO as PW3, HC Kuldeep Singh as PW4,

Manjinderpreet Singh, Sr. Assistant as PW5, Ashok Kumar Retd Head

Mechanic as PW6, Hansa Singh as PW7 and thereafter prosecution evidence

was concluded vide order dated 17.11. 2016.

5. After conclusion of evidence, statement under Section 313

2 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

Cr.P.C. was recorded. Even though an opportunity was granted to lead

defence evidence but no evidence was led by the petitioner.

6. After going through the evidence recorded and considering the

arguments advanced by the contested parties, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Ferozepur convicted/sentenced the petitioner vide judgment/order dated

15.02.2017. The punishment awarded is as under:-

Offence U/s Sentenced

279 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

337 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

427 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment of three months.

7. Aggrieved of the said judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 15.02.2017, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Court

of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, which was dismissed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 18.05.2017. Hence, the present revision

petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since both the

Courts have concurrently recorded findings of fact against the petitioner, he

does not wish to assail the conviction on merits and confines his prayer

against sentencing and prays for the grant of benefit of probation, as the pre-

requisites for the same stand duly satisfied. He submits that while passing

3 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

the impugned judgments, the Courts below have not taken into account the

mitigating circumstances warranting consideration of the petitioner for grant

of probation. It is contended that the petitioner is nearly 44 years of age and

is not involved in any other criminal case. The incident in question,

according to the learned counsel, does not reflect any element of criminality

but rather appears to be an unfortunate accident arising out of the given

factual circumstances. He further submits that the act attributed to the

petitioner cannot be construed as indicative of a criminal mindset. It is,

therefore, submitted that his conduct does not reflect any disposition that

would pose a threat or danger to society at large, thereby justifying

consideration for the benefit of probation.

9. Counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute the

mitigating circumstances referred to by the petitioner in support of his claim

for grant of probation.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant

submits that he has no objection, if the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner is

allowed.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the impugned judgments.

12. Before considering the plea of the petitioner for grant of

probation, the legal position for availing the benefit of probation needs to be

kept in mind.

13. As per the settled principles of law governing the grant of

probation, the benefit of probation is ordinarily extended to cases where the

4 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

circumstances indicate a deviation from the law, rather than a demonstration

of inherent criminal propensity or conduct reflecting a hardened or

incorrigible disposition. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is

reformative and rehabilitative not punitive and aims to reintegrate an

offender into the mainstream of society where such reintegration appears

feasible. The aim and object of the Probation Act came to be decided by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar

reported as (1972) 2 SCC 633. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering

the scope of the Probation Act has held as under :

"6. 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 consonance 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

recognises 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,

5 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

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. The Act

gives statutory recognition to the above objective. It is,

therefore, provided that youthful offenders should not be sent

to jail, except in certain circumstances. Before, however, the

benefit of the Act can be invoked, it has to be shown that the

convicted person even though less than 21 years of age, is not

guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. This

is clear from the language of Section 6 of the Act. Sub-section

(1) of that section reads as under:

"When any person under twenty-one years of age

is found guilty of having committed an offence

punishable with imprisonment (but not with

imprisonment for life), the Court by which the person is

found guilty shall not sentence him 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 offender, it would not be

desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4,

and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on

the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so."

14. The aforesaid position was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Chellammal and Another v. State reported as 2025

6 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

SCC Online SC 870. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under:

"26. On consideration of the precedents and based on a

comparative study of Section 360, Cr. P.C. and subsection (1)

of Section 4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the

latter is wider and expansive in its coverage than the former.

Inter alia, while Section 360 permits release of an offender,

more twenty-one years old, on probation when he is sentenced

to imprisonment for less than seven years or fine, Section 4 of

the Probation Act enables a court to exercise its discretion in

any case where the offender is found to have committed an

offence such that he is punishable with any sentence other than

death or life imprisonment. Additionally, the non-obstante

clause in sub-section gives overriding effect to sub-section (1)

of Section 4 over any other law for the time being in force. Also,

it is noteworthy that Section 361, Cr. P.C. itself, being a

subsequent legislation, engrafts a provision that in any case

where the court could have dealt with an accused under the

provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it shall

record in its judgment the special reasons therefor

27. What logically follows from a conjoint reading of

sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section

361, Cr. P.C. is that if Section 360, Cr. P.C. were not

applicable in a particular case, there is no reason why Section

4 of the Probation Act would not be attracted.

7 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

28. Summing up the legal position, it can be said that

while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation

as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the

statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and

the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability

of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless

applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances

stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are

attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its

consideration release of the offender on probation; on the

contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider

whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon

fulfilment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of

probation could be decided either way. In the event, the court in

its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may

upon considering the report of the probation officer impose

such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the

answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for

the court to record the reasons therefor."

15. In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the

petitioner possesses a criminal bent of mind or that his conduct poses any

threat to society. Hence, by the broader principles of criminal jurisprudence,

no adverse presumption can be drawn against him.

16. It is well established that sentencing must be guided by the dual

8 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

objectives of deterrence and reformation. Where the conduct of an accused

reveals tendencies of a hardened criminal, exhibiting a dangerous or anti-

social disposition capable of shocking public conscience, a deterrent

sentence becomes necessary. However, in the absence of such factors, the

Court is expected to adopt a judicious and humane approach, oriented

towards rehabilitation rather than retribution.

17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon due

consideration of the submissions advanced with regard to the petitioner's

claim for grant of probation, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to

be considered for the benefit of probation in respect of the offence in

question. The following factors merit consideration in support of above:

(i) The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case.

(ii) There is no material on record to suggest that subsequent to the occurrence in the present case, which dates back to the year 2012, the petitioner has not indulged in any further unlawful activity.

(iii) There exists no reason for this Court to presume that the petitioner is incapable of being reintegrated into the mainstream of society or that he possesses any criminal propensity of mind.

(iv) The petitioner is nearing his fifties and as a good samaritan, he brought the injured to the hospital for further treatment.

(v) The incident in question is not a pre-meditated offence and happens to be a chance accident which has not resulted in any serious consequences or loss of life.

(vi) The petitioner has his family to support and the children

9 of 10

245 CRR-2041-2017 (O&M)

would be in critical career stages in their life.

(vii) The petitioner has suffered agony of criminal trial for over a period of 13 years and the sentence awarded is 6 months.

18. In view of the aforesaid factors, there appears to be no reason to

presume that the petitioner is incapable of reformation or reintegration into

mainstream society, nor is there any indication of a continuing criminal

propensity.

19. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

case, I deem it appropriate to direct release of the petitioner on probation on

furnishing an undertaking of keeping peace and good behaviour for two

years to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner shall also

remain under the supervision of the concerned probation officer during the

aforesaid period. In the event of the petitioner failing to comply with the said

direction or committing breach of the undertaking given by him, he shall be

called upon to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him

in the present case.

20. The instant petition is partly allowed.

                                                    (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
10.11.2025                                                  JUDGE
Mangal Singh
         Whether speaking/reasoned :       Yes/No
         Whether reportable        :       Yes/No




                                         10 of 10