Convict Has Right To Be Considered For Release On Probation: Gauhati HC Grants Relief To Headmaster, Son Who Assaulted Student's Mother

The Gauhati High Court recently extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a school Headmaster and his son, who were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 323 and 34 of IPC for allegedly assaulting a student's mother, on the ground that the trial court failed to consider the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefit of said Act.

The single judge bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed,

“This court, after perusal of the judgment, is of the opinion that the learned Appellate Court did not make any considerations under the Act, 1958, inasmuch as, such consideration is a right of the accused and duties of the courts. A court may not grant benefit in the given facts of a case, however, consideration must be given. At the same time, the learned trial Court did not grant the benefit under the Act, 1958 to the petitioners citing manner of commission of offence.”

The case of the prosecution was that the Headmaster and his son assaulted a student's mother, who questioned their refusal to provide rice supplies sanctioned by the Government. It was also alleged that the accused persons outraged the complainant's modesty and also threatened her with injury.

The Magistrate court convicted and sentenced the petitioners to two months imprisonment under Sections 323 and 34 of IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment. Aggrieved, the present criminal revision petition was preferred.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that he shall not challenge the impugned order of conviction and shall confine his submission in the appeal to the point that Trial Court ought to have considered granting benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.

It was argued that accused persons have a right of consideration under the Probation Act and therefore, the right of the petitioners have been violated. It was submitted that the Appellate Court did not invoke the provisions of the Probation Act nor the provisions of Sections 360, 361 of CrPC while sentencing the accused-petitioners and the Trial Court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order for not giving benefit of such provision.

The High Court noted that the Probation of Offenders Act is a milestone in progress of modern liberal trend of reform in the field of Penology. It is the result of recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him.

It relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana 1981 1 SCC 447 and Sita Ram Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 3534.

It noted that the Trial Court failed to consider the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefit of Act of 1958.

“In the case in hand, the offence was committed on 30.10.2004. The nature of offence and manner it was committed cannot also be said to be heinous or premeditated inasmuch as admittedly there was quarrel between the parties for not delivery of rice to the child of the victim by the accused, who is a school Headmaster. In the given circumstances of the case. It is also asserted by the learned counsel that the petitioners have not committed any similar nature of offence or to say any offence prior to the incident or during pendency of this appeal till date. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has also submitted that he has no instruction as regards any criminal activities of the petitioners. This court also had considered that the accused petitioners have suffered for last 20 years litigating in the court and facing trial, appeal and revision,” the Court noted.

It was observed by the Court that the petitioners be given the benefit under the provisions of Act and accordingly, modified the sentence to the effect that instead of sending them to jail, they should be given the benefit of Section 4.

The Court directed the petitioners to file two sureties to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- each along with personal bond before the Trial Court and undertake to the effect that the petitioners shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of one year.

It was further remarked by the Court that the petitioner (Headmaster) be given benefit of Section 12 of the Act of 1958 and conviction should not affect his service or pensionary benefit.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 1

Case Title: Abdur Rehman Mandal & Anr. v. Mosht Rukia Kjhatun and Anr. & The State of Assam

Case No.: Crl.Rev.P./273/2009

Click Here To Read/Download Order