Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Lakhanlal @ Lakhan Singh – Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1306 of 2013
Decided on 4.4.2019
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 360 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 4 – Benefit of probation – If offender is less than 21 years of age or a woman not convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life; such offender can be granted benefit of probation on satisfaction of court on the basis of parameters contained in Section 360 of Code – However, in respect of an offender more than 21 years of age, benefit of release is available only if offence is punishable for less than seven years’ imprisonment or fine – Object of Section 360 of Code is to prevent young persons from being committed to jail, who have for first-time committed crimes through ignorance, or inadvertence or bad influence of others and who, but for such lapses, might be expected to be good citizens – Provisions of Section 360 of Code are in addition to provisions of 1958 Act or Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. (Paras 8 and 16
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 325 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 360 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 4 – Hurt – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Incident has occurred more than thirty years back in year 1989 – Appellant has suffered proceedings for more than 30 years – There is no material on record that appellant was involved in any other offence during last more than thirty years – High Court erred in law in not granting benefit of probation to appellant convicting for offence under Section 325 and Section 34 of IPC – In terms of Section 360, appellant be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on furnishing personal bond before Trial Magistrate. (Para 17)
Result: Appeal disposed of in terms.
The legal document discusses the application of the provisions related to the benefit of probation for offenders, particularly focusing on age, nature of the offence, and related statutes. The key points are as follows:
Eligibility for Probation Based on Age and Offence: An offender who is under 21 years of age or a woman, and has not been convicted of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, can be granted the benefit of probation if the court is satisfied based on parameters such as age, character, and circumstances of the offence (!) (!) .
Offences and Punishment Limits for Probation: For offenders over 21 years, the benefit of probation is generally available only if the offence is punishable by less than seven years of imprisonment or a fine. The primary aim is to prevent young offenders from being unnecessarily imprisoned, especially for first-time lapses (!) (!) .
Legal Frameworks and Statutes: The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 360) and the Probation of Offenders Act (Sections 3 and 4) are both applicable and work in conjunction to facilitate probation, with the Code's section providing specific age and offence limits, and the Act emphasizing rehabilitation and reform (!) (!) .
Object of Probation Laws: These laws aim to reform youthful offenders, prevent recidivism, and avoid unnecessary incarceration for minor or first-time offences. The laws recognize that young offenders are often influenced by socioeconomic factors and should be given opportunities for correction (!) (!) .
Misinterpretation of Law by Courts: The High Court's decision to deny the benefit of probation was based on an erroneous reading of the applicable statutes, particularly overlooking the provisions that explicitly include offenders under 21 years and the coexistence of the relevant laws (!) (!) (!) .
Application to the Present Case: The offence occurred more than thirty years ago, and the offender has no record of involvement in other offences during this period. The court found that the offender qualifies for the benefit of probation under the applicable legal provisions, and the order was made for the offender to be released on probation for a period of one year (!) .
Order and Disposition: The appeal was disposed of by ordering the release of the offender on probation, with the condition of furnishing a personal bond, within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the rehabilitative intent of the law and the specific circumstances of the case (!) (!) .
This summary encapsulates the principles, statutory provisions, and case-specific details relevant to the application of probation laws for youthful offenders and the importance of correct legal interpretation.
ORDER
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 05.01.2019 maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In the event of non-payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo another period of imprisonment for six months.
2. Initially, eight accused were made stand to trial for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325 and 307 of IPC in respect of the incident, which occurred on 30.10.1989 at 20.30 hours at Village Sirodi Police Station Doraha, District Sehore.
3. The prosecution’s case is that on 30.10.1989, when Ramesh and Munshi Lal were returning to their home after seeing Jaware, accused-appellant hit complainant Munshi Lal with lathi which struck on the elbow of his left hand whereas the second blow was on the left side of his head. After completion of investigation, the accused-appellant along with other accused was made to stand trial before the learned Magistrate.
4. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The two other accused convicted by the learned trial court also went in appeal to the High Court and their conviction and sentence were also maintained. However, the appellant alone is in appeal before this Court.
5. The High Court held that section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not be applicable as the matter falls within sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The relevant extracts from the judgment read as under:—
“The submission of the appellant is considered. In this reference, it is profitable to refer to Sub section 10 of section 360 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which prescribes that nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Therefore, matter as such is governed by section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and section 360 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 shall have no application in the present case.
A careful reading of section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not stipulate that the benefit of the release on probation for good conduct after admonition is to be given to such offenders who are 21 years or less than 21 years of age which is a specific provision made in section 360 of the Cr.P.C., 1973”
6. We find that the order of the High Court is based upon erroneous reading of the provisions of law and that the appellant is entitled to benefit of probation in terms of Section 360 of the Code as well as under the 1958 Act. The relevant provisions of Section 360 of the Code read as under:—
“360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition.
(1) When any person not under twenty- one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty- one years of age or any woman is- convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, 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 where any fi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
