In CRR-44-2020-PUNJ HC-Mandate of Section 360 CrPC as well as Sections 4 and 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 contemplate that in case offences are not heinous or grievous, law should take recourse to extend certain indulgence to first time offenders: P&H HC
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj [18-08-2022]

Read Order: Inder v. State of Punjab 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, August 19,2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recently held that invariably, the mandate of Section 360 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 contemplate that in case the offences are not heinous or grievous, the law should take recourse to extend certain indulgence to the first time offenders. 

The Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held, “Benefit should ordinarily be extended unless the Court feels that the convict is incorrigible and cannot be reformed… While the punitive aspect of sentencing may be essential in cases of habitual offenders or criminals, the same yardstick should not be applied to persons who have committed an offence at a given moment in time and for no criminal tendencies and pursuits.”

In this case, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and his wife under Sections 323, 506, 509, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the statement of the injured complainant who alleged that when her bedridden husband asked his younger brother to fix his dripping room ceiling, he (younger brother) entered into a verbal spat with him (the husband) and when the complainant and her daughter intervened, they were given lathi blows and physically assaulted by the accused and his wife (co-accused). 

Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the judgement of conviction for the aforesaid offences i.e. under Sections 323, 325 IPC was passed and the petitioner (brother-in-law of the complainant) as well as his wife were sentenced. The appeal preferred by the petitioner and his wife was partly allowed inasmuch as the conviction of wife of the petitioner was modified and she was held guilty under Section 323 IPC and was ordered to be released on probation within a period of six months on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety. The appeal qua the petitioner was however dismissed.

Hence, the present revision petition was filed. 

The Counsel for the petitioner restricted his submissions on the quantum of sentence. It was submitted by him that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the commission of offence under Section 325 IPC and six months for the commission of offence under Section 323 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500, respectively. 

It was further contended that the offence, in question, took place in the month of December 2016 and that the petitioner already faced the protracted agony of criminal trial for the last more than six years. He further submitted that the petitioner was a labourer and had three children who were fully dependent upon him. 

It was also contended that the petitioner was not a previous convict and that in view of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner was entitled to be considered to be released on probation for good conduct considering the age, character as well as the antecedents, including the circumstances in which the offence was committed.

After considering the above stated, the Court observed that invariably, the mandate of Section 360 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 contemplate that in case the offences are not heinous or grievous, the law should take recourse to extend certain indulgence to the first time offenders and that the object of sentencing is also reformative and to assess as to whether a convict displays traits of a hardened criminal beyond reform or has potential for reform.

Further, the Court also added that the benefit should ordinarily be extended unless the Court feels that the convict is incorrigible and cannot be reformed, and the Court takes into consideration varied factors including social, educational, physical and psychological circumstances of an accused; the gravity, nature and manner of committing the offence; the consequences, the social reaction of the offence; the antecedents and tendencies of an accused and assesses the punishment that is ought to be deterrent, reformative or proportionate. 

“The object of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would stand defeated in case a strict and stringent method is adopted by the Courts and such benefits are not to be extended at all. No such circumstances, as ought to have been taken into consideration and alleged to have been violated, are pointed out”, asserted Justice Bhardwaj. 

Further, the Bench opined that a person who is more than 21 years of age and is convicted for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, is entitled to claim the benefit of probation for good conduct under Section 360 Cr.P.C., provided that there is no previous conviction against the offender and after taking into consideration the age, character and antecedents of the offender, along with the circumstances in which the offence was committed.

Coming to the present case, the Court held that the petitioner fulfilled the prescribed circumstances under Section 360 Cr.P.C. Additionally, the Court opined that the petitioner was nearly 50 years of age and the financial hardship for the family shall be greatly enhanced if he was subjected to undergo the entire imprisonment especially when the petitioner was a labourer. 

“While punitive aspect of sentencing may be essential in cases of habitual offenders or criminals, the same yardstick should not be applied to persons who have committed an offence at a given moment in time and for no criminal tendencies and pursuits”, asserted the Bench while adding, 

“The order of sentence … is modified and the petitioner is directed to be released on probation for good conduct for a period of one year on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.”