SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
PAWAN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CR.R/4145/2013



Petitioner Advocates:ADARSH KUMAR VASHISHT ,Respondent Advocate: AG

##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 4145 of 2013

Decided on : 23.12.2025

Pawan Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P.

…Respondent

___________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

________________________________________________

For the Petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K.Vashishta,

Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G.

_____h________________________________________________

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Petitioner has filed the present revision

H petition, against the judgment, dated 31.8.2013,

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the Appellate Court), in Criminal Appeal (RBT) No.

25-P/2010/2007, titled as ‘Pawan Kumar versus the

State of H.P.’

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:55:07 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2. Vide judgment, dated 31.8.2013, the learned

Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the.

petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the convict’),

under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal HProcedure

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), against the

judgment of conviction, and order of sentence, dated

1.8.2007, passed by the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class-1, Palampur, District Kangra, HP,

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Crl. Case

No. 147-II/2005, titled as, “State of H.P. versus Pawan

Kumar”.

3. By virtue of judgment of conviction and order

of sentence, dated 1.8.2007, the learned trial Court

has convicted the convict/petitioner, for the

commission of offences, punishable under Sections

452, 506, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced him in

the following manner:

Sections Sentence imposed In default

S. 452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for Simple imprisonment for

a period of six months and two months.

to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.-

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:55:07 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

S.506 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for Simple imprisonment for 15 days.

a period of three months

and to pay a fine of Rs.

500/- .

S. 354 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for Simple imprisonment for

a period of three months one month

and to pay a fine of Rs.

1000/-

S. 323 IPC Simple imprisonment for a Simple imprisonment for

period of three months and one month H

to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-

4. The instant revision petition has been

admitted for hearing by this Court, vide order, dated

29.10.2013.

5. Vide order, dated 25.9.2025 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. hToday, statement of the convict/petitioner has

bgeen recorded on oath, in which, he has stated that he

idoes not want to press the present petition, preferred

against the judgment of conviction and prayed that

he may be released on probation.

7. The report of the Probation Officer perused.

The Probation Officer has specifically mentioned that

the conduct of the convict, during past years, in the

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:55:07 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4

society, is good and has recommended that the benefit

under Probation of Offenders Act be given to them. .

8. The offences, for which, the convict has been

convicted, are not punishable with Hdeath or

imprisonment for life. The convict is having the

permanent abode in District Kangra, H.P. There is

nothing on the file to demonstrate that after the

incident, upon which, the FIR was registered against

the convict, any other incident, had taken place and

no subsequent offence has been committed by him.

9. The convict has already faced the agony of the

trial, in cluding the pendency of the revision petition,

for the last about twenty years.

10. Our Criminal Jurisprudence System is

reformatory in nature. With the passage of time, it has

been realized that sending the first offender to jail, to

undergo substantive sentence, does not produce good

results, as, the first offender/convict, sometimes, may

come in contact with the hardened criminals.

::: Downloaded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top