Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sangram Ram And Ors vs State on 20 April, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 598/1994
Sangram Ram And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandrasen Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 20/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be accepted and the order/judgment of the trial court be set aside and the appellants be acquitted."
3. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since 1994.
4. Vide impugned judgment dated 01.12.1994 the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 in Sessions Case No.105/1994 convicted them for the offence(s) (Downloaded on 22/04/2022 at 08:44:36 PM) (2 of 6) [CRLA-598/1994] under Section(s) 451, 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act and sentenced them as under:- (Sentences will run concurrently) 451 IPC : 06 months SI and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months SI.
323 IPC : 04 months SI and a fine of Rs.250/-
in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 months SI.
3(1)(x) SC/ST Act : 06 months SI and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months SI.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the offence under Sections 451, 323 IPC, as per the Indian Penal Code, are punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to one year and up to two years respectively; and the maximum punishment that may be awarded under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act is up to five years, and, therefore, the appellant may be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the accused-appellants do not have any criminal antecedents to their discredit.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants was suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 16.12.1994, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.558/94 and thus, they are on bail.
8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellants may be granted (Downloaded on 22/04/2022 at 08:44:36 PM) (3 of 6) [CRLA-598/1994] benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--
(1) 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 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: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3)...
(4)...
(5)... "
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the matter of Darshan Singh Vs. (Downloaded on 22/04/2022 at 08:44:36 PM) (4 of 6) [CRLA-598/1994] State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.54/1995) decided on 17.02.1995 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court held that the benefit Section 360 Cr.P.C., as well as those of provision under Probation of Offenders Act apply to the Arms Act of 1959. It was further observed that the even though a minimum sentence has been prescribed for any offence, it is not sufficient to refuse beneficiary probation, however, the application of the same would depend on the facts of each case.
10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the accused-appellant(s) are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
12. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"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.
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 sick. 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 (Downloaded on 22/04/2022 at 08:44:36 PM) (5 of 6) [CRLA-598/1994] offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society."
12.1 In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2022 Raj 945, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-
"Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act nature of offence is one of the major-criteria for determining whether benefit of this provision should be given to the concerned offender or not. His age would be another relevant factor and the circumstance in which the offence was committed may be 3rd important consideration... "
12.2 In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 198, while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"... The Court has further opined that though the discretion as been vested in the court to decide when and how the court should form such opinion, yet the provision itself provides sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient..."
13. This Court is conscious of the fact as pointed out by learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the maximum punishment that may be awarded under Sections 323 and 451 IPC is up to one year and up to two years respectively; and the maximum punishment that may be awarded under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act is up to five years, and, therefore, Section 4 of the Act of 1958 will apply in the present case.
13.1 This Court observes that there is no material on record that the accused-appellants have any criminal antecedents. Thus, the (Downloaded on 22/04/2022 at 08:44:36 PM) (6 of 6) [CRLA-598/1994] accused-appellants are entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
13.2 Thus, this Court, after taking into due consideration the legislative intent of the Act and the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Hashim (supra), deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused- appellants.
14. Resultantly, the present appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the present accused-appellant(s) for the offence under Sections 451, 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, as recorded by the learned Court below in the impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgment, and directs that the appellants shall be released on probation, under Section 4 (while considering Section 6) of the Act, upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with a further undertaking that they shall maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
57-nirmala/-
(Downloaded on 22/04/2022 at 08:44:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)