IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that good conduct can warrant probation even after conviction under serious IPC sections.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Revisionist was convicted under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/-; he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC; he was convicted under Section 338 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/-, and, he was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304A IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. An Appeal was filed by the revisionist. The said Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2018) has been dismissed vide judgment dated 11.08.2023, passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Revisionist is in judicial custody since 28.08.2023.

3. Supplementary affidavit along with a copy of the District Probation Officer, Dehradun’s report dated 18.12.2023, filed by the State, is taken on record.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2003, the revisionist drove the Ambassador car (Registration No.UA07A2019) rashly and negligently and hit a scooter (Registration No.UP07G-0490). In the said incident, Jitendra alias Jaggu was injured and the informant’s nephew Sandeep died. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

5. Charges were framed. Revisionist-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses.

7. The statement of the revisionist-accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8. Heard Mr. B.S. Bhandari with Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for revisionist and Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for State.

9. Admit.

10. Mr. B.S. Bhandari, Advocate, has requested to alter the sentence and grant benefit of probation to the revisionist under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

11. The said submission has not been opposed by the State.

12. Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocate, has submitted that as per the report of the District Probation Officer, Dehradun, conduct and behavior of the revisionist have been found good and there is no criminal case pending against him.

13. The present matter is pending since 22.11.2003. There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activities.

14. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems appropriate that the sentence, passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned Appellate Court, should be altered and the benefit of probation should be granted to the revisionist.

15. Consequently, without altering the findings of the Courts below, the nature of the sentence is being altered.

16. Resultantly, the revisionist be released on probation on good conduct for a period of one year, on his entering into a bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to appear and receive sentence when he is called during such period. In the meantime, he is directed to keep the peace and be of good behavior. Revisionist is further directed to appear before the District Probation Officer, Dehradun within a period of one week from today.

17. Revisionist is in judicial custody. He is directed to be released forthwith.

18. Registry is directed to send a copy forthwith to the Superintendent of District Jail, Dehradun for necessary compliance.

19. Registry is further directed to send a copy of this judgment to the District Probation Officer, Dehradun for necessary action.

20. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for revisionist, today itself, on payment of usual charges.

21. The present Revision is disposed of accordingly.