Supreme Court of India
SOM DUTT & ORS. versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH on 4 April 2022
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1
SOM DUTT & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2022)
APRIL 04, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Probation – Release on probation – Appellants convicted bythree courts below u/s.379 r/w s.34 IPC and sentenced to 3 monthsSI – Revision filed before High Court – Dismissed – Challenge to –Held: No interference warranted with concurrent findings of factsrecorded by the courts below – However, appellants granted benefitof release on probation of good conduct u/s.361 CrPC r/w ss.3 and4 of the Probation of Offenders Act having regard to the sentenceimposed by courts below, and as the appellants had no criminalantecedents, and the Respondent (State) filed no objection to this –Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – ss.3 and 4 – Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 – ss. 360 and 361 – IPC – s.379 r/w s.34.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Actempower the courts to release the offenders on probation of goodconduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein.Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C also empower thecourts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct inthe cases and circumstances mentioned therein. Hence, havingregard to sentence imposed by the courts below on the appellantsfor the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC,and having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedentsagainst the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefitof releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view ofthe matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposedon the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be releasedon probation of good conduct, on each of the appellants furnishinga personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with surety of the like amount,and on further furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace andgood behaviour for a period of three years, to the satisfaction ofthe concerned trial court. [Para 6][3-F-H; 4-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.549 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2021 of the High Courtof Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Revision No.149 of 2012.
Arvind Gupta, Amit Singh Chandel, Dr. Kamal Yash Sahwal, MohitBBidhuri, Ashish Kumar Sinha, Jaynath Sah, Advs. for the Appellants.
Manish Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Riya Soni, V. K. Shukla, JayantaBhattacharyya, Ankit Verma, Ms. Archana Kumari, Ms. Shivangi Singh,Rahul Gupta, Shashank Sharma, Ms. Beena, Ms. Saket Gautam, SatishKumar, Advs. for the Respondent.C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Special leave is granted.
2. The appellants (original accused) have assailed the order datedD06.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla inthe Criminal Revision Petition No. 149 of 2012 filed by the appellants,dismissing the same.
3. The appellants – accused were convicted by the JudicialMagistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi Himachal Pradesh forEthe offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC in the CriminalCase No. 381 of 2009, and were directed to undergo simple imprisonmentfor a period of three months and pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default thereof,to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month, vide the judgmentand order dated 20.01.2012. The said judgment was affirmed by theFAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, camp at Karsog videjudgment and order dated 08.06.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11of 2012. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the appeallateCourt, the appellants had preferred the Revision Petition being No. 149of 2012, which came to be dismissed by the High Court of HimachalPradesh vide the impugned order dated 06.08.2021G
4. As per the case of prosecution, on 18.09.2008, a Police partywas patrolling at the place Dungru Nallah, when one red colour Indigocar came from Phegal road without having any number plate. The carwas stopped by the Police party. It was driven by Manoj Kumar aliasManoj Kaushal (Accused no. 5 now deceased), and Bula Ram (AccusedH
no.4) was sitting in the car. On being asked they told the Police partythat they were going to Sundernagar for remoulding the tyres of thetractor which was being brought behind the car. A tractor trolly alsoreached on the spot, which was being driven by Daleep Kumar (Accusedno. 2); and Som Dutt (Accused no. 1) and Ranjan Kumar (Accused no.3) were sitting on the tractor. The Accused no. 1 Som Dutt told thePolice that the tractor belonged to him and the documents of the tractorwere with Accused no. 4 Bula Ram. However, on checking the tractorand trolly documents, it was found that the registration numbers weredifferent. Hence an FIR was registered against all the five accused forthe offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. After theinvestigation was over, the case was tried against all the accused for theoffence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC and wereconvicted and sentenced as stated earlier.
5. Though the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants hadsought to challenge the impugned order passed by the High Courtmaintaining the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellants,we were not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of factsrecorded by the three courts below holding the appellants guilty of theoffence under Section 379 of Section 34. The learned Advocate for theappellants, however had submitted that the courts below should haveconsidered the case of the appellants for granting them the benefit ofreleasing them on probation under Section 361 of the Cr.P.C read withSections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. We thereforeconsidering the said submission had issued the notice to the respondent-State. Learned Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar for the respondent-Statethough has filed the reply, has not much resisted to the submission of thelearned Advocate for releasing the appellants on probation.
6. Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empowerthe courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in thecases and circumstances mentioned therein. Similarly, Sections 360 and361 of the Cr.P.C also empower the courts to release the offenders onprobation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentionedtherein. Hence, having regard to sentence imposed by the courts belowon the appellants for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34of IPC, and having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedentsagainst the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit ofreleasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Awhile maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants,it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of goodconduct, on each of the appellants furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with surety of the like amount, and on further furnishing anundertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of threeyears, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. It is further directedBthat if the appellants failed to comply with the said directions or commitbreach of the undertaking given by them, they shall be called upon toundergo the sentence imposed by the trial court.
7. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the Appeal stands allowed.
C
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeals partly allowed.
D
E
F
G
H