The court ruled that probation can be granted under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, regardless of the offender's age, focusing on the nature of the offence and the offender's character.

Order

06/05/2025

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants u/S 374(2) Cr.P.C . with a challenge to the order dated 04.05.1994, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, SC/ST Cases), Dausa in Session Case No.19/1994, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 325, & 323 of IPC.

2. During pendency of this appeal, the accused-appellant No.1- Jansi S/o Shri Narayan has expired on 21.02.2019, hence, this appeal is being considered only to the extent of appellant No.2- Govinda S/o Shri Gainda.

3. On filing of the appeal, the sentence awarded to the accused appellant Govinda was suspended vide order dated 23.06.1994 and he was released on bail.

4. Amicus Curiae Ms. Meeta Pareek, Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Govinda instead of arguing the appeal on its merits with regard to challenge to conviction and sentence, confines her arguments for grant of benefit of probation to the accused appellant Govinda under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’). Counsel further submits that except the present case, no case has been registered against the accused-appellant Govinda. Counsel further submits that the accused-appellant Govinda is living peacefully in the society without there being any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

Counsel further submits that the accused-appellant Govinda has faced trial for about 35 years. Thus, from the last about 35 years, the accused appellant Govinda is facing mental agony and harassment because of pendency of criminal case registered against him. Counsel further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the accused appellant Govinda is six months simple imprisonment. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the accused-appellant Govinda may be given the benefit of probation under the provisions of the Act of 1958.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Govinda and submits that looking to the allegations and the manner in which the incident took place, the appellant Govinda is not entitled for any kind of leniency in granting the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958.

6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Govinda as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. Section 4 of the Act of 1958, nowhere says that the benefit of probation cannot be allowed to an accused who is above 21 years of age. The Act of 1958 deals with the powers of the Court to release certain offenders for good conduct. Section 4 of the Act of 1958 reads as under:-

“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any