Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Rajika Gupta – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 132 of 2025
Decided On : 03-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused convicted under ipc 279,337,304a; appellate probation granted. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. state challenges probation citing sc precedents and accident rise. (Para 4 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. probation prohibited for section 304a per supreme court rulings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. conflicting precedent not binding; reasons must fit po act. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. set aside order; remand for fresh appeal adjudication. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
1. The State of Himachal Pradesh has filed the present Criminal Appeal, under Section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, against the judgment dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Kangra, at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 20-D/X/2022, titled as Rajika Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh .
2. By way of the impugned judgment, the judgment of conviction dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’), in Criminal Case Registration No. 186 of 2015, titled as State vs Rajika Gupta , has been upheld and benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, has been given to the respondent, by modifying the order of sentence, dated 08.12.2022.
3. Vide judgment of conviction dated 18.11.2022, the respondent-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as the IPC) and vide order of sentence dated 08.12.2022, she has been sentenced as under:-
| S. No. | Offences | Sentenced imposed | Fine amount | In default |
| 1 | Section 279 of IPC | Simple imprisonment for a period of six months | ||
| 2 | Section 337 of IPC | Simple imprisonment for a period of two months | Rs.500/- | Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days |
| Section 304-A of IPC | Simple imprisonment for a period of two years | Rs.2500/- | Simple imprisonment for a period of one month |
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present appeal has been filed by the State mainly on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has wrongly extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the respondent, in violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana , AIR 2000 SC 1677, as well as, decision of this Court in case titled as State of H.P. vs. Piar Chand , 2003 STPL HJ 282 HC.
5. As per the documents annexed with the appeal, respondent-Rajika Gupta (hereinafter referred as the accused) was directed to face trial, arising out of FIR No. 218 of 2014, dated 14.09.2014, registered under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC. The learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections , 337 & 304-A of , which were put to the accused, for which, she had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Consequently, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. Prosecution has examined, as many as, 10 witnesses. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned APP and learned defence counsel, has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC, vide judgment dated 18.11.2022 and vide order of sentence dated 08.12.2022, she has been sentenced, as aforesaid.
7. All the sentences had been ordered to be run concurrently and the total amount of Rs.3,000/- had been ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Pushpa Devi, as compensation.
8. The accused has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, before the learned Appellate Court.
9. The learned Appellate Court has decided the appeal on 07.05.2024 by partly allowing the appeal, upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, however, order of sentence, dated 08.12.2022, has been modified by extending the benefit
Probation benefits under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act cannot extend to convictions under IPC Section 304A for death by rash/negligent driving, emphasizing deterrence amid rising road accid....
Convictions under Section 304-A IPC may permit probation for first-time offenders, balancing justice and rehabilitation, especially in negligence-based cases lacking mens rea.
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 for negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, while extending probation due to the petitioner's youth and lack of prior of....
First offender convicted of rash driving causing hurt (no death) released on probation balancing deterrence against good conduct, family needs, reformatory justice, despite general Supreme Court caut....
Revisional court cannot reappraise evidence unless perverse; wrong-side driving at high speed is negligent causing hurt under IPC 279/337/338; probation denied in road injury cases for deterrence.
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
