Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
LAKHVIR SINGH ETC. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal Nos. 47-48 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos.6283-6284/2020]
Decided on : 19-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307 and 382 read with Section 34 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Sections 4 and 6 – Attempt to murder and theft after preparation made – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Compromise between parties – Complainant has stated that he did not want to pursue any action against appellants and has no objection to their release on bail or acquittal – Appellants have already served about 50% of their sentence while in custody – In case of an offender under age of twenty one years on date of commission of offence, Court is expected ordinarily to give benefit of provisions of Act and there is embargo on power of Court to award sentence unless Court considers otherwise, having regard to circumstances of case including nature of offence and character of offender and reasons for awarding sentence have to be recorded – Appellants are below 21 years of age as on date of offence – Sentencing order was passed by trial Court noting that appellants committed an offence of serious nature against a poor person and were disentitled from the benefits under the Act or under Section 360, Cr.P.C. – Section 4 could come to aid of appellants as offence committed, of which they have been found guilty, is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life – Since appellants were under 21 years of age on date of offence and not on date of conviction, Section 6 would not come to their aid – Appellants have not served out minimum sentence of 7 years though they have served about half sentences – They were aged under 19 & 21 years of age as on date of offence but not on date of sentence – Redeeming feature in their case is that person who suffered, appears to have forgiven them, possibly with passage of time – There is no adverse report against them about their conduct in jail – This is a fit case that benefit of probation can be extended to appellants under the Act in view of provisions of Section 4 of the Act on completion of half sentence – Appellants released on probation of good conduct. (Paras 3, 7, 8, 10, 14 and 15)
Facts of the Case:
In pursuance to the reporting of crime by complainant, an FIR was registered on 15.02.2003 under Section 382 and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Knife and dagger were recovered alongwith the taxi and the trial Court framed charges under Section 397 IPC. Post trial, the appellants were convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 8.1.2005 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years each. Appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by impugned judgment
Findings of Court:
Appellants have not served out the minimum sentence of 7 years though they have served about half sentences. They were aged under 19 & 21 years of age as on the date of offence but not on the date of sentence. The redeeming feature in their case is that the person who suffered, appears to have forgiven them, possibly with the passage of time.
Result : Appeals disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
The appellants were youngsters aged 20 and 19 years when they fell foul of the law. On 14.02.2003, at around 7.30 p.m., the appellants alongwith co-accused Gurpreet Singh1[He faced trial before a Juvenile Court.] approached the complainant - PW1 to hire a taxi to go to a village. Enroute, when at their behest the car was stopped, Gurpreet Singh caught hold of the complainant and the appellant Jagdeep Singh took a dagger and inflicted 6-7 injuries on PW1's forehead. Appellant Lakhvir Singh inflicted 2-3 injuries on his abdomen and 1 injury on his neck using a knife. The complainant was thrown out of his taxi and the three people fled with the taxi. In pursuance to the reporting of the crime by complainant, an FIR was registered on 15.02.2003 under Section 382 and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Knife and dagger were recovered alongwith the taxi and the trial Court framed charges under Section 397 IPC. Post trial, the appellants were convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 8.1.2005 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years each.
2. The appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2019.
3. The appellants approached this Court by a special leave petition. Annexed thereto, the compromise deed arrived at between the complainant Amrik Singh and the appellants before us, in terms whereof the complainant has stated that he did not want to pursue any action against the appellants and has no objection to their release on bail or acquittal. The appellants have already served about 50% of their sentence while in custody.
4. On 3.12.2020, this Court while recording the aforesaid plea, issued notice on the SLP and on the prayer for interim relief of bail while simultaneously impleading the complainant as the 2nd respondent. On 18.12.2020, counsel for the State and respondent no. 2 entered appearance and counsel for respondent no.2 confirmed that the dispute had been amicably resolved. However, counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the minimum sentence provided by the statute under Section 397 is 7 years and the same cannot be reduced below that period. On this submission, learned counsel for the appellants sought benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is on the limited conspectus of the aforesaid aspect that on 11.01.2021, we granted leave and reserved the judgment upon conclusion of arguments and the parties having filed their respective synopsis.
The legal position
5. The plea of the learned counsel for the State respondent no.1 is based on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das, (2019) 4 SCC 125 opining that the courts cannot impose less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the statute. He thus seeks continuing detention of the appellants to serve out the remaining sentence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants has sought the benefit under the said Act in view of the age of the appellants when the offence was committed.
6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved. Section 6 of the said Act, as per its own title, provides for restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age. The said provision reads as under:
"6. Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age.-(1) 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
In case of an offender under age of twenty one years on date of commission of offence, Court is expected ordinarily to give benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and there is emba....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the circumstances of the case, the na....
The court emphasized the necessity for trial courts to consider the application of probation laws for first-time offenders and the requirement to provide reasons for not applying such provisions.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering probation for first-time offenders and the requirement for special reasons when denying such benefits, particularly under the Probation of Offenders ....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC but granted probation, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment for offenders above 21 years.
The Probation of Offenders Act allows for probation for offenders not facing life sentences, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment based on individual circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to extend the benefit of probation to offenders under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the circum....
The court established that probation can be granted under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, even for older offenders, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
Courts mandatorily consider probation for eligible offences under three years' imprisonment, recording reasons for denial; long pendency, no antecedents justify reformatory release over punishment.
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
