Section 4 Of Probation of Offenders Act Can't Be Invoked When Accused Is First Offender: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering a case filed under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code involving a brutal attack on the victim with very grievous injuries.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While directing the accused persons to surrender in a criminal case of attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Supreme Court has held that Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not permit its invocation when it is found that the accused is a first offender. The Apex Court noted that relief was granted by the High Court under the Probation of Offenders Act and held that the case was doomed from its inception.
The Apex Court was considering a case under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, involving a brutal attack on the victim with very grievous injuries.
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “The accused have gone scot-free without suffering a single day of imprisonment, especially by reason of the misplaced sympathy based on grandiose expositions of law; totally inapplicable to the facts of the case. Section 4 of the PoO Act does not permit its invocation, when it is found that the accused is a first offender. We also are unable to comprehend as to why the High Court observed that the accused were suffering for twenty-two years.True, protracted trial is agonizing but here, the accused were on bail and merrily indulging in criminal activities. The victim, on the other hand, in the ensuing years was, day-in and dayout suffering the debilitating effects of the attack.”
AOR Akanksha Rai represented the Appellant while AOR Namit Saxena represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the first informant (first accused A1) was running a shop, near which PW1 also opened a similar shop, which angered the accused. On the fateful day, A1 and A2 together mercilessly attacked the victim, the brother of PW1, who was engaged in chores. A1 was holding a cutting weapon, and A2 had a gun, both of which were used on the victim, who fainted due to the injuries. The Additional Sessions Judge who carried out the trial was gracious to the accused in having punished them with a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 20,000 with a default sentence of one year of simple imprisonment. The High Court was very indulgent insofar as it released the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the injuries were grievous and had been specifically noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It was noticed that there were cut injuries and gunshot wounds which would fall within the definition of ‘grievous hurt’ under Section 320 and not ‘hurt’ under Section 319 of the IPC. “Section 308 hence ought not to have been charged, and the offence would clearly fall under Section 307 of the IPC, especially since on facts, none of the exceptions under Section 300 applies to the crime proper”, it added.
The Bench noted that it was not a case of grave and sudden provocation or one of private defence or a sudden fight, and neither the perpetrators were public servants nor was the defence of consent raised. “Be that as it may, the charge was under Section 308 of the IPC, and the trial was proceeded with and there is little we can do at this stage”, it stated.
The Apex Court further highlighted the application of Section 4 of the PoO Act in the present case. The Bench noted that the impugned order abruptly found application of Section 4 of the PoO Act on the finding that the incident occurred in 2003 and the appellants had suffered in the matter for the last 22 years, as also the absence of criminal antecedents during these years. The Bench was informed that the accused had not undergone any sentence and was not in custody even for a single day.
The Bench further took note of the fact that the incident had left not only its scars on the victim but had left him, in the words of the Probation Officer, ‘visibly weak, slow, sluggish and drowsy’. It was noticed that the victim also ‘walks with great difficulty, suffers continuous pain, and has lost substantial functionality of both upper limbs, right hand being disabled’. “The victim’s family consists of six daughters of which four are married and two unmarried. The victim’s medical treatment is continuing at Max Hospital, Lucknow. These aspects more than explain why the victim is not before us, and the first informant, his brother is before us seeking justice to the victim”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that the brutality of the crime and the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim ought to have persuaded the Court to draw an adverse inference on the aspect of ‘nature of offence’. The Bench also found that the High Court, despite the overwhelming adverse report on the ‘character of the offenders’ and giving short shrift to the ‘nature of the offence’, released the accused on good conduct. As per the Bench, there was nothing commending the Court to so release the accused, since the conduct, over the years, of the accused was anything other than ‘good’.
Allowing the appeals, the Bench directed that the accused respondents surrender within two weeks.
Cause Title: Umesh Chand v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1114)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Akanksha Rai
Respondent: AOR Namit Saxena, AOR Aishvary Vikram, Advocates Lucky Sharma, Yash Jain