The court reinforced that the Probation of Offenders Act prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, allowing for probation based on the offender's character and circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Ganesh Ram Meena, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malpura, Tonk, (Rajasthan) [for short ‘the trial Court’] in Sessions Case No.03/93, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

U/s. 363 IPC:

Three years Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. On filing of appeal, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant was suspended vide order dated 20.01.1994 and he was released on bail.

3. Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant 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 appellant 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-appellant. Counsel further submits that the accused-appellant is living peacefully in the society without there being any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

4. Counsel further submits that the accused-appellant has faced trial for about twenty two months and against the impugned judgment, he preferred the appeal in the year, 1994. Thus, from the last about 31 years, the accused-appellant is facing mental agony and harassment because of pendency of criminal case registered against him. Counsel further submits that the maximum sentence under Section 363 of IPC is seven years but in the present case, the accused appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years Simple Imprisonment. Counsel further submits that the accused appellant is about 67 years of age. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the accused-appellant may be given the benefit of probation under the provisions of the Act of 1958.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Hakam Ali, counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the prayer made by the counsel appearing for the appellant and submit that looking to the allegations and the manner in which the incident took place, the appellant is 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.

6. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel appearing for the complainant.

7. Learned trial Court while considering the issue of granting leniency to the accused appellant, has rejected his prayer in regard to the leniency.

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 368/1991; Bagdawat Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 18.05.2022, has observed as under:-

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 offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society.

13. In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2022