Sending First Time Offenders To Jail For Minor Offences Attracts Them Towards Crime: Punjab & Haryana HC Bats For Probation, Reformative Justice

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that Courts have "ample power" to release the first offender of minor offences on probation, keeping into focus the nature and manner of the crime, age of the offender, other antecedents and attending circumstances of the offence, instead of committing him to jail.

While observing that the accused persons in voluntarily causing hurt case, "were neither hardened criminals nor habitual offenders," the Court upheld the trial court's order allowing their plea for probation.

Justice Manisha Batra observed,

"the object underlying the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity "the Probation Act") and Sections 360 & 361 of Cr.PC, is that the first offenders be not sent to jail for the commission of less serious offences, on account of grave risk to their attitude to life to which they are likely to be exposed as a result of their association with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates of the jail."

The bench added, "Their stay in jail in such circumstances might well attract them towards a life of crime instead of reforming them. This would clearly cause more harm than to reform them, and for that reason, it would perhaps also be to an extent prejudicial to the larger interests of the society as a whole. Perhaps that was the reason that the mandatory injunction against imposition of sentence of imprisonment has been embodied in Section 6 of the Probation Act."

These observations were made while hearing a revision plea against Sessions court's order whereby the appeal filed by the five accused persons against the judgment of conviction had been partly allowed and the accused were ordered to be released on probation on furnishing personal bonds of peace and good behaviour.

According to complainant-petitioner Virender, the accused persons had wrongfully restrained and hurt him as well as to two other persons.

Charges against the accused were framed under Sections 323, 325 and 341 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court held the accused persons guilty and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Counsel for petitioner argued that the judgment passed by the appellate Court granting probation to the accused persons is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the appellate Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. It was further submitted that as many as 21 injuries were caused to three injured including complainant, which included grievous injury but the appellate Court had ignored the medical evidence and the testimony of the witnesses.

The accused persons were not represented during the proceeding.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to law laid down by the Supreme Court and held "the Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society..."

Justice Batra highlighted that, "the sole intention of the legislature in passing probation laws is to give person of a particular type of chance of reformation, which they would not get if sent to prison. The types of persons, who are in the contemplation of the legislature under the probation law are those who are not hardened or dangerous criminals, but those who have committed offences under some momentary weakness of character or some tempting situation."

By placing the offender on probation, the Court saves him from the stigma of jail life and also from the contaminating influence of hardened prison inmates. Probation also serves another purpose, which is quite significant though of secondary importance, the Court added.

The Court further said that, "it helps in eliminating overcrowding in jails by keeping many offenders away from the prison.Section 360 Cr.P.C. deals with order to release the accused on probation of good conduct or after admonition, whereas Section 361 Cr.P.C. provides that "where in any case the Court could have dealt with an accused person under Section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation Act, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment, the special reasons for not having done so."

In the present case, the Court noted that accused persons had families to support and they were repentant of their acts.

While considering "the agony and trauma, which the accused persons have undergone during protracted trial, appeal, revision, their antecedents, nature of offence, totality of other facts & circumstances", the Court opined that, no useful purpose would be served by sending them again into jail.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed and the impugned order of the appellate Court was upheld.

Mr. Sunny Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Nidhi Garg, AAG, Haryana.

None for respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

Case Title: Virender v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 244

Click here to read/download the order