Probation under Section 4 PO Act granted for Sections 279/337 IPC offences to first offender despite rash driving deterrence principle, based on good character, family dependence, reformatory justice, and favourable probation report.

Judgment :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision, against the judgment, dated 14th March, 2014, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2013/2012, titled as Dinu @ Dinesh versus State of Himachal Pradesh .

2. Vide judgment, dated 14th March, 2014, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction, and order of sentence, dated 9th November, 2012, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Police Challan No.137­II of 2009, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Dinu @ Dinesh.

3. The learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, has convicted petitioner Dinu @ Dinesh for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and sentenced him, as under:­

(i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months; and

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.

The learned trial Court has directed the sentences, so awarded, to run concurrently.

4. Today, the convict, vide his separate statement, has stated that he does not want to press the present petition, against the judgment of conviction, dated 09th November, 2012, however, he has prayed that he may kindly be released on probation, by modifying the order of sentence dated 09th November, 2012. He has also deposed that he is the sole bread earner of his family, comprising his parents, wife and two children.

5. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 09th November, 2012, passed by the learned trial Court, perused.

6. As per the said order, the learned trial Court, has not considered the question of releasing the convict on probation. The learned Appellate Court has also not considered this question.

7. In this case, the report of the Probation Officer has been called for. The report of the Probation Officer perused. In the report, the Probation Officer has recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the convict, vide his report, dated 06th January, 2026.

9. Now, the question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is about the fact as to whether the relief of probation can be extended to the convict.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana , (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 82, has categorically excluded Section 304­A IPC. Relevant paragraphs­13 and 14 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

“13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304­A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the P.O. Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly infor