Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Ram Krishan - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No.4032 of 2013
Decided On : 27-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Petitioner in person with Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

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 caution.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 & 201 - Rash or negligent driving endangering life, causing grievous/simple hurt, destruction of evidence - Conviction by trial Court, appeal dismissed by Sessions Judge - In revision, petitioner not pressing challenge to conviction, seeks probation benefit - Trial Court did not consider probation - Probation Officer recommends grant based on good conduct - Despite Supreme Court emphasis on deterrence in road accident cases to curb callous driving (excluding probation under Section 304-A IPC usually), and 'expedient' in Probation of Offenders Act, Section 4 meaning apt/suitable considering nature of offence and circumstances, Court holds probation expedient as offences not involving death/life sentence, first offender, good societal conduct, family breadwinner, long pendency (20 years), reformatory jurisprudence favouring non-custodial reform over jail contact with hardened criminals. (Paras 3,6-12,17-26)

(B) Sentencing - Probation - To be considered by trial Judge with reasons if denied; compensation to victims part of just sentencing with reasons if not granted. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
Convict sentenced for rash driving causing grievous/simple hurt to two injured and destroying evidence; appeal dismissed; revision admitted; probation report called; prior cases either acquitted or compromised; seeks probation as first offender with family.

Findings of Court:
Conviction upheld; sentence modified to probation of good conduct for two years on personal bond Rs.30,000/- with surety; additional Rs.5,000/- compensation to injured; violation revives original sentence.

Issues: Whether relief of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act expedient despite road accident nature emphasizing deterrence.

Ratio Decidendi: Balancing deterrence with reformatory goals, probation granted considering no death caused, offender's character, family hardship, precedents allowing in similar non-fatal hurt cases, and probation as suitable non-custodial measure.

Result: Revision partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history of revision against driving convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. convict seeks probation as first offender. (Para 6)
3. trial ignored probation; report recommends it. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. no probation for rash driving deaths: deterrence. (Para 11 , 12)
5. probation allowed in similar driving cases. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. good conduct and mitigation support probation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. reformatory justice favors probation for first-timers. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. sentence modified to probation with compensation. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Cr.MP No. 4660 of 2025
By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to place on record, the record pertaining to Case FIR No.557 of 2008, which, as per report of the Probation Officer, is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court, whereas, as per the contents of the application, in the above case, matter has been compromised way back on 28.10.2010.
Since, the documents, which are sought to be placed on record, have bearing upon the merits of the case, as such, the documents are ordered to be taken on record.
Application stands disposed of.

Cr. Revision No.4032 of 2013
Petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision, against the judgment, dated 05.06.2013, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2009, titled as ‘ Ram Krishan versus State of H.P. ’.

2. Vide judgment, dated 05.06.2013, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the convict’), against the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2009 and order of sentence, dated 23.03.2009, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

3. By virtue of judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2009 and order of sentence, dated 23.03.2009, the learned trial Court has convicted the convict, for the commission of offence, punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced him, as under:

4. The instant Cr. Revision has been admitted for hearing by this Court, vide order, dated 24.07.2013.

5. Vide order, dated 01.08.2025, this Court has ordered to call for the report of the Probation Officer. In sequel thereto, the report of the Probation Officer has been received.

6. Today, the petitioner/convict has stated that he does not want to press the instant Criminal Revision, filed against the judgment of conviction and prayed that he may be released on probation, as he is the first offender, having a family, consisting of his wife and two sons.

7. The judgment of conviction, dated 19.03.2009, and order of sentence, dated 23.03.2009, passed by the learned trial Court, perused.

8. As per the said order, the learned trial Court, has not considered the question of releasing the convict on probation.

9. In this case, the report of the Probation Officer has been called for. In the report, the Probation Officer has recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the convict, vide his report, dated 30.08.2025

10. 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.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalbir Singh’s case (supra), has categorically excluded Section 304-A IPC. Relevant paragraphs-13 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 304-A 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