Sikkim High Court
Sashi Shekhar Thakur vs State Of Sikkim on 8 September, 2022
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
DATED : 8th September, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. Rev. P. No.01 of 2022
Petitioner : Sashi Shekhar Thakur
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Petition under Section 11 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958, read with Section
397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yozan Rai, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Thinlay Dorjee
Bhutia, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the State-Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R (O R A L)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Revisionist/Petitioner herein was charged and
faced trial for the offence under Section 354 A(1) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC"), in General Register Case
No.08 of 2018 (State of Sikkim vs. Sashi Shekhar Thakur). Vide
Judgment and Order on Sentence dated 30-04-2018, he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, with a default
clause of imprisonment, by the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, South Sikkim, at Namchi for the offence under which
he was charged. Aggrieved thereof, the Revisionist was before the
Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi, in
Criminal Appeal Case No.02 of 2018 (Sashi Shekhar Thakur vs. State
Crl.Rev.P. No.01 of 2022
of Sikkim), which confirmed the Judgment and Order on Sentence,
dated 30-04-2018.
2. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner was before this
Court in Criminal Revision Petition Case No.03 of 2018 (Sashi
Shekhar Thakur vs. State of Sikkim). This Court having considered
the Petition and while declining to interfere with the Judgment and
Order on Sentence of the Learned Courts below was of the opinion
that the prospect of releasing the convict under Section 360 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the "Cr.P.C") and
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter, the
"Probation Act"), could be examined by the Learned Courts below.
In compliance thereof, the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, South Sikkim, at Namchi, took up the matter on 14-12-
2020 and observed inter alia that the convict was in a position of
power/authority and he had misused the same taking advantage of
the situation of need/desperation of the victim. It was further
observed that the offence for which the Revisionist was convicted
was heinous in nature and he ought not to be let off lightly. It was
concluded that the convict did not deserve to be released on
probation either under Section 4 of the Probation Act or under
Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. The Court of the Learned Sessions
Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi, on Appeal by the Petitioner
herein, confirmed the findings of the Learned Trial Court and while
upholding the Order cancelled the Bail Bonds of the Petitioner and
ordered that he be taken into custody forthwith for serving out the
remainder of the Sentence imposed on him.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner before this
Court urges that the case of the Petitioner may be considered
compassionately in view of the fact that he has already lost his job
Crl.Rev.P. No.01 of 2022
which suffices thereby as penalty. That, he is a first time offender.
That, he was about twenty-seven years of age at the time of
offence and he now needs to settle in life and rehabilitate in
society. It was also submitted that one of the Bail conditions was
that he was not to leave Sikkim. Accordingly, he remained in
Sikkim during the course of trial and was not able to carry out his
duties as a son to his aged parents. That, he has been in custody
for about six months now and in consideration of all the above
facts and circumstances, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation
Act may be extended to him. To fortify his submission reliance was
placed on ratio Pritam Singh vs. State of H.P1, State of Haryana vs.
Prem Chand2, Ishar Das vs. The State of Punjab3 and also on B. S.
Narayanan vs. State of A.P4.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent put
forth the contention that the victim was a Bank Manager at the
relevant time and the Bank was recruiting lady staff where the
victim had also appeared to take part in the interview. Being thus
in a dominant position, he tried to extract sexual favours from the
hapless victim by dictating to her that the kind of clothes she ought
to wear and by touching her physically. While considering
extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, it was
urged that the nature of offence and the character of the offender
is to be taken into consideration. That, in the instant case as held
by both the Learned Courts below the nature of offence is heinous
and the victim has to be lauded for her courage to complain
despite risking her chances of not being recruited. That,
considering the official position of the convict at his place of
employment at the relevant time and that of the victim, who was
2012 CRI.L.J. 468
(1997) 7 SCC 756
(1973) 2 SCC 65
1987 (Supp) SCC 172
Crl.Rev.P. No.01 of 2022
at a disadvantageous position, the convict deserves no mercy and
consequently, the Petition be dismissed and disposed of. To
buttress his submission, reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan
vs. Sri Chand5.
5. Having duly considered the submissions put forth by
Learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the Revisionist
took undue advantage of the victim who had come to appear for an
interview in the Bank where the Revisionist was the Manager and
conducting the interview. It was not his place at the relevant time
to make suggestions as put forth or to physically touch the victim.
It is not necessary to make observations about the details of the
case herein, suffice it to observe that the actions of the Revisionist
reeks of depravity, is antisocial and reflects misogyny.
6. Having perused the Orders of the Learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, South Sikkim, at Namchi and that of the Learned
Sessions Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi, in my considered
opinion, the Orders brook no interference, considering the nature
of the offence and the character of the Petitioner, writ large on his
actions.
7. Consequently, the Petition stands dismissed and
disposed of accordingly.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
9. No orders as to cost.
10. Copy of this Order be transmitted to the Learned
Courts below, for information, along with its records.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
08-09-2022
sdl Approved for reporting : Yes
(2015) 11 SCC 229
