Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
Nawal Kishore S/o Satya Narain and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1993
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Probation of Offenders Act - Criminal Appeal - 307 IPC, 34 read with Section 307 IPC, 323 read with Section 34 IPC - 4
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellants appealed against their conviction and sentence under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The senior counsel for the appellants argued for the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, citing the absence of criminal antecedents and the age of the accused-appellants as mitigating factors.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments of both the senior counsel for the appellants and the public prosecutor. It noted that the trial court had rejected the plea for leniency. The court then extensively discussed the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and relevant case law, ultimately deciding to grant the benefit of probation to the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused-appellants were eligible for the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering their age, absence of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the offences they were convicted for.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and relevant case law, which emphasized the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society. The court also considered the legislative intent of the Act and the absence of a bar under the law to extend the benefit of probation to convicts above 21 years of age.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the convictions but directing the release of the appellants on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon certain conditions. The appellants were given two months to fulfill the requirements for their release on probation.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.1993 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, Prevention of Atrocities, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.88/1990, whereby, they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| U/s. 307 IPC | (Accused appellant No.1- Nawal Kishore) | Five years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 2 months imprisonment. |
| U/s. 34 read with Section 307 IPC | (Accused appellant No.2- Rajesh) | Five years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 2 months imprisonment. |
| U/s. 323 read with Section 34 IPC | (Both accused appellants) | Fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine each of the accused appellant has to undergo 15 days imprisonment. |
2. On filing of appeal, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants was suspended vide order dated 13.12.1993 and they were released on bail.
3. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amar Kumar and Ms. Savita Nathawat, appearing for the accused appellants instead of arguing the appeal on its merits with regard to challenge to the conviction and sentence, confines his arguments for grant of benefit of probation to the appellants under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’). Counsel further submits that except the present case, no case has been registered against the accused-appellants. Counsel further submits that the accused-appellants are living peacefully in the society without there being any criminal antecedents to their discredit.
4. Senior Counsel further submits that the accused-appellants have faced trial for about three years and against the impugned judgment, they preferred the appeal in the year, 1993. Thus, from the last 33 years, the accused-appellants are facing mental agony and harassment because of pendency of criminal case registered against them. Counsel further submits that the maximum sentence under Section 307 of IPC is 07 years but in the present case, the accused appellant No.1 Nawal Kishore has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of IPC and accused appellant No.2-Rajesh has been convited for the offence under section 34 read with section 307 IPC and they been sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC a fine of Rs.100/- has been imposed upon each of them. Senior Counsel further submits that the accused appellant No.1 is 59 years of age and the accused appellant No.2 is 56 years of age. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the accused-appellants may be given the benefit of probation under the provisions of the Act of 1958.
5. Senior Counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in case of Smt. Sumati vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No.533/2003 decided on 23.11.2022 and also the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in case of Smt. Budana And Anr. vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.108/2005 decided on 29.08.2023.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the prayer made by the counsel appearing for the appellants and submits that looking to the allegations and the manner in which the incident took place, the appellants are not entitled for any kind of leniency in awarding sentence as well as the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958.
7. Considered the submissions made by the Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. Learned trial Court while considering the issue o
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 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 court held that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 applies to offenders above 21 years, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
The court reinforced that the Probation of Offenders Act prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, allowing for probation based on the offender's character and circumstances.
The court established that probation can be granted under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, even for older offenders, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
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 ....
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
