Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana

IN

RAM KUMAR

State of HARYA CORAM: HO

Present : Mr

Mr AMAN CHAUD

1.

Cha

14.08.2018 pass preferred by th Judicial Magistr under Sections 2

2.

Sum IPC, on account driven by the a prepared and pr accused-petition

3.

As to prove its case under Section 3

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA

Versus ANA ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN

***** r. Nishant Raj Ghanghas, Advoca r. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG Punjab ***** DHARY. J. allenge in the instant revision sed by the Additional Sessions J e petitioner against the judgme rate 1st Class, Guhla, convicting 279 and 304-A of IPC has been d mmarily, an FIR was registere t of an accident that took place o accused-petitioner, and a bicycle resented in the Court. Upon whic ner to which he pleaded not guilt many as 12 witnesses were exa e. Thereafter, the statement of th 13 CrPC whereby incriminating

NJAB & HARYANA ARH CRR-3675-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.202

....Petition

...Respond N CHAUDHARY

ate for the petitioner petition is to the judgment dat Judge, Kaithal, whereby the app ent dated 25.08.2015 rendered and sentencing him for the offen dismissed. ed under Sections 279 and 304 on 15.03.2013 between a car, bei e. After investigation, challan w ch charges were framed against t ty and claimed trial. amined by the prosecution, in ord he accused-petitioner was record evidence was put to him, which

ner ent

ted eal by 4-A was der ded

denied and plead

4.

The proved its case, under Sections imprisonment fo

5.

Ag Judge, Kaithal,

14.08.2018.

6.

Hen

7.

Lea wish to press th probation under circumstances b seller; has alrea never misused t has a family to s

8.

On and submits that the evidence pro factum of petitio that the present

9.

Hea

10.

On that the Swift c

ded false implication. He did not e trial Court came to the con , and accordingly convicted the 279 and 304A, IPC and se or a period of 1 year and pay a fi grieved accused-petitioner, app whereby his appeal was dismiss nce, the present revision petition arned counsel at the outset sub he present petition on merits and r The Probation of Offenders Ac being that, the incident pertains t ady undergone 5 months and 26 the concession of bail and is firs support, including his wife. n the other hand, learned State t the Courts below have rightly c oduced by the prosecution. He is oner never having misused the c revision petition be dismissed. ard and perused. n the basis of evidence on record, car being driven by the accused

t lead any evidence in his defenc nclusion that the prosecution h e petitioner-accused for an offen entenced him to undergo simp ine of Rs.2,000/- concurrently. proached the Additional Sessio sed vide impugned judgment da n. bmits that the petitioner does n d prays for extending the benefit ct, 1958, in view of the mitigati to the year 2013; the petitioner i days out of the sentence award st time offender, sole breadwinn counsel opposes the prayer ma convicted the accused-petitioner s however, unable to controvert t concession of bail. Therefore, pra , it was found by the Courts bel d-petitioner in a rash and neglig

ce. has ple ons ted not t of is a ed; ner, de, on ays ow

manner, had cau The prosecution found to have b caused to the o properly examin

11.

So extending him t to Section 4 of t

used the accident and hit the a n version, apart from the ocular been corroborated by the mecha offending car and the motor cy ned the evidence and rightly conv far as the prayer made on b the benefit of probation, it wou the Probation of Offenders Act, 1 "4. Power of Court to probation of good conduct.

(1) When any person is fou offence not punishable with the Court by which the perso having regard to the circum nature of the offence and th expedient to release him on notwithstanding anything co time being in force, the court once to any punishment d entering into a bond, with o receive sentence when call exceeding three years, as t meantime to keep the pea Provided that the Court sh offender unless it is satisfied any, has a fixed place of ab place over which the Court the offender is likely to liv enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any orde shall take into consideration officer concerned in relation

(3) When an order under s may, if it is of opinion that i

ccidental motor cycle frombehin version of the witnesses, was a anical report regarding the dama ycle. Thus, the Courts below ha victed the petitioner. behalf of the petitioner regardi uld be apposite to make a referen 1958, which reads thus: release certain offenders .- und guilty of having committed death or imprisonment for life a on is found guilty is of opinion th mstances of the case including t he character of the offender, it n probation of good conduct, th ontained in any other law for t t may, instead of sentencing him direct that he be released on or without sureties, to appear a ed upon during such period, n the Court may direct, and in t ace and be of good behavio hall not direct such release of d that the offender or his surety bode or regular occupation in t exercises jurisdiction or in wh ve during the period for which er under sub-section (1), the co the report, if any, of the probati to the case. sub-section (1) is made, the co in the interests of the offender a

nd. also age ave on an and hat, t is en, m at his and not our: an , if ich he ourt ion ourt

12.

It w State of Punja regarding the pu observed and h liberal trend of r the doctrine tha offender than to 21 years of age committed an o who are guilty o the age of 21 ye

of the public it is expedie supervision order directing th the supervision of a proba during such period, not bein specified therein, and may i such conditions as it deems of the offender.

(4) The court making a supe shall require the offender, be bond, with or without sur specified in such order and respect to residence, abstent matter as the court may, circumstances, consider fi repetition of the same off offences by the offender.

(5) The court making a supe shall explain to the offende order and shall forthwith fu order to each of the offend probation officer concerned." would be worthwhile to refer t ab AIR 1965 SC 444, where urpose and object of 'The Prob held that, "The Act is a milesto reform in the field of penology. at the object of criminal law o punish him. Broadly stated the and those above that age, and o offence punishable with death o of a lesser offence. While in the ears, absolute discretion is given

ent so to do, in addition pass hat the offender shall remain und ation officer named in the ord ng less than one year, as may in such supervision order, impo necessary for the due supervisi rvision order under sub-section efore he is released, to enter into reties, to observe the conditio d such additional conditions w tion from intoxicants or any oth having regard to the particu it to impose for preventing fence or a commission of oth rvision order under sub-section er the terms and conditions of t urnish one copy of the supervisi ders, the sureties, if any, and t " to the judgment of Ratan Lal eby Hon'ble the Supreme Cou ation of Offenders Act, 1958' h one in the progress of the mode It is the result of the recognition is more to reform the individu Act distinguishes offenders bel offenders who are guilty of havi or imprisonment for life and tho e case of offenders who are abo n to the court to release them af

s a der der be ose ion

(3) o a ons with her ular a her

(3) ion vs. urt, had ern n of ual ow ose ove

admonition or o the appropriate years an injunct unless it is satis the nature of th deal with them u

13.

Ho of Bihar, AIR 2 at the appellate power which is the nature of the nature of the of offence, the imp the accused und limitation embo the discretion v the powers unde to the nature o circumstances o Offenders Act v committed, not exercised by the having regard to and the characte

on probation of good conduct, su provision of the Act, in the case tion is issued to the court not t sfied that having regard to the ci e offence and the character of t under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act." n'ble The Supreme Court in Sit 2005 SC 3534, observed that be e or revisional stage as well, a discretionary, the Court has to c e offence and the character of th ffence, the Court must take a r pact which the offence had on th der Section 4 of the Probation odied in the provisions and the ests with the Court whether to er Section 3 or 4 of the Probatio of the offence and the charac of the case. The powers unde vest with the Court when any pe punishable with death or impris e Courts while finding the person o the circumstances of the case, er of the offender, benefit shoul

ubject to the condition laid down e of offenders below the age of to sentence them to imprisonm ircumstances of the case, includi the offenders, it is not desirable taram Paswan and Anr. vs. Sta enefit of probation can be extend and held that, "For exercising t consider circumstances of the ca he offender. While considering t realistic view of the gravity of t he victim. The benefit available of Offenders Act is subject to t word "may" clearly indicates th release the offender in exercise on of Offenders Act having rega cter of the offender and over er Section 4 of the Probation erson is found guilty of the offen onment for life. This power can n guilty and if the Court thinks th including the nature of the offen ld be extended to the accused, t

n in ent e to ate ded ase, e to hat of ard rall of be

power can be ex also by this Cou India."

14.

It w Aitha Chander of Orissa, 1995

(2001) 10 SCC 1046, wherein H a conviction wh driving under S offender, who h sentence impose

15.

Thi decided on 27.0 fact that after ha purpose would b involved in any

16.

In P appellant, who traffic, which w though found th not be covered b justice would be and fought the

xercised by the Court even at th urt while hearing appeal under would also be gainful to make r Rao vs. State of A.P., 1981 (S 5 Supp (2) SCC 385 and Om C 477, and State of Karnataka Hon'ble The Supreme Court ext here mens rea remains absent a Section 279 read with Section 30 has faced protracted trial, no pur ed. is Court in Bishan Singh vs. S

01.2023, had released the petitio aving faced criminal proceeding be served by sending him back other criminal case. Paul George vs State of N.C.T was Head Constable Driver, was the factor that caused the acc hat it was clearly not a matter wit by Section 140 of Delhi Police A e met, if he is directed to be rele litigation tenaciously that lasted

he appellate or revisional stage a Article 136 of the Constitution e a reference to the judgments Supp) SCC 17, A.P. Raju vs. Sta Prakash vs. State of Haryan a vs. Muddappa 1999 SCC (C tended the humanizing principle as in a case of rash and neglig 04-A IPC and convict is first-tim rpose would be served to suffer t State of Punjab, CRR-1283-200 oner on probation by observing t s for more than 23 years, no use to jail, more so, when he was n T. of Delhi 2008 (4) SCC 185, t had come-face on the incomi cident, Hon'ble The Supreme Co thin the colour of duty, thus he w Act, however, observed that ends ased on probation, he having fac d for 20 years and throughout h

and n of in ate na, Cri) e to ent me 08, eful not ourt was s of ced

good service car

17.

Thi another, CRR-been convicted he had undergon and faced the pr

18.

In (Crl.) 855, this C servant, remain more than 16 ye bail, had 5 child his service sha Offenders Act. Haryana, decid on probation of not a previous c years had passe while observing of the Probation Azad Singh a conviction of th petitioners were held entitled to terms of Section

reer, but for this one aberration. is Court also in the case of Ajai -2851-2009, decided on 03.03. under Sections 304A and 279 a ne a sentence of 3 months and 6 rotracted trial for approximately the case of Paramjit Singh vs Court allowed probation to the ap ed in custody for 11 days, suff ears, was not a previous convict, dren, wife and old aged parents t all not be affected in terms of Likewise, in CRR-444-2019, ti ded on 22.07.2019, this Court or f good conduct, in view of the m convict had shown substantive im ed by, was sole bread earner an g that his probation may not affec n of Offenders Act. In the case nd another, CRR-2734-2015 he petitioner was upheld and th e directed to be released on prob benefit of probation which may n 12 of the Probation of Offender

ib Singh vs. State of Punjab a 2022, wherein the petitioner h and 427 IPC, granted probation days out of 2 years of the senten 9 years. . State of Haryana 2011(2) RC ppellant, who was a Haryana Go fered agony of protracted trial had not misused the concession to support, with an observation th f Section 12 of the Probation tled as Sunil Kumar vs. State rdered the release of the petition mitigating circumstances, he bei mprovement in his character afte nd a driver in Haryana Roadwa ct his career in terms of Section e of Umed Singh and Others decided on 04.04.2019 also t he sentence was modified and t bation of 2 years. The accused w not have an effect on his career rs Act.

and had n as CR ovt. for n of hat of of ner er 7 ays, vs. was

19.

Thi CRR-146-2014, convicted under was a governme the prolonged tr Rajan vs. State Army at the tim ground of havin promotion as a C and compensate

20.

Rev on behalf of th circumstances a would be adequ good conduct.

21.

As disposed of with year, on the fol Offenders Act, 1

is Court in the case of Amard , decided on 30.05.2014, had r Sections 337 and 304A IPC o ent employee, at the fag end of h rial for almost 9 years. Similarl e of Punjab, decided on 31.01.2 me of incident was ordered to ng an unblemished service of 34 Colonel, and had undergone 3 m ed the LRs of the deceased in MA verting to the facts of the presen he petitioner is concerned, this and the judgments referred to ab uately met if the petitioner is g a consequence to the above, p h a direction to grant probation t lowing conditions as enshrined 1958:

(1) He shall execute a bon solvent sureties in a sum executed before the trial Co from today.

(2) The said bond shall be in

deep Singh vs. State of Punja released the petitioner, who w on probation by observing that his service, and otherwise had fac ly, in CRR-3241-2012, Major J 2013, the petitioner, a Major in t be released on probation on t years in the Army and was due months out of the sentence award ACT. nt case as regards the prayer ma Court considering the mitigati bove, finds that the ends of just granted the benefit of probation present revision petition is here to the petitioner for a period of o under Section of the Probation nd for good behaviour with tw of Rs.25,000/- which shall ourt within a period of one mon force for a period of one year.

ab, was he ced Jai for ded ade tice of eby one n of wo be

22.

It conditions, the undergo the sent

29.10.2025 himanshu

Whether s

Whether r

(3) He shall be subject to Officer and subject to the con of Offenders Act. is clarified that in case there petitioner will forthwith be tak tence awarded to him by the tria

(A

speaking/reasoned

: reportable

:

the supervision of the Probati nditions laid down in the Probati e is any breach of the afores ken into custody and shall have al Court. AMAN CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE

ion ion aid