Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a revision petition filed by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 02-05-2022, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat (‘the Appellate Court’), Manish Batra, J., stated that the object underlying the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘the Probation Act’) and Sections 360 and 361 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was that the first offenders should not be sent to jail for the commission of less serious offences, on account of grave risk to their life, as they were likely to be exposed with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates of the jail. Thus, considering the agony and trauma, which the accused persons underwent, the Court stated that no useful purpose would be served by sending them again into jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Accordingly, the Court stated that the impugned judgment was well reasoned one and based on settled proposition of law and found no infirmity or illegality.
Background
In the present case, the FIR was registered against the Respondent 2-6 (‘accused persons’) under Sections 323, 325, 341, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) with the allegations that the accused persons had wrongfully restrained the complainant and caused hurt to him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, after appraising the entire material placed on record, held that Respondent 2-6 was guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of one year. Thereafter, an appeal was filed, whereby the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02-05-2022, ordered the accused persons to be released on probation.
Thus, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioner filed the present petition. The question for consideration before the Court was whether the Appellate Court was justified in granting probation to the accused persons.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the object underlying the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation Act and Sections 360 and 361 of the CrPC was that the first offenders should not be sent to jail for the commission of less serious offences, on account of grave risk to their life, as they were likely to be exposed with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates of the jail. The Court stated that in such circumstances, their stay in jail might 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 also be prejudicial to the larger interests of the society.
The Court stated that the sole intention of the legislature in passing probation laws was to a chance of reformation to a particular type of person, which they would not get if sent to prison. The types of persons, who were in the contemplation under the probation law were those who were not hardened or dangerous criminals, but those who had committed offences under some momentary weakness of character or some tempting situation. The Court stated that by placing the offender on probation, the Court saved him from the stigma of jail life and from the contaminating influence of hardened prison inmates. Probation also helped in eliminating overcrowding in jails by keeping many offenders away from the prison.
The Court further stated that it had 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.
The Court noted that the Appellate Court had observed that the accused persons were neither hardened criminals nor habitual offenders. They had families to support, and they were repentant of their acts. Thus, considering the agony and trauma, which the accused persons underwent, the Court stated that no useful purpose would be served by sending them again into jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Accordingly, the Court stated that the impugned judgment was well reasoned one and based on settled proposition of law and found no infirmity or illegality.
[Virender v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 6350, decided on 03-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sunny Tyagi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Nidhi Garg, AAG, Haryana.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
