Perform Community Service Of Plantation Of 50 Trees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Man While Releasing Him In Road Accident Case
The Punjab & Haryana High Court said that it is not the function of the Judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best interests.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Punjab & Haryana High Court
While releasing a man in a road accident case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed him to perform community service of plantation of 50 trees and to maintain the same for 5 years.
A Criminal Revision Petition was preferred by him, challenging the Judgment and Order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ludhiana.
A Single Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj ordered, “As Montesquieu observed, the certainty of mild yet consistent punishment serves as a far greater deterrent than the transient severity of harsh sentences. Guided by this enduring principle, it is directed that the petitioner shall also be liable to perform community service of plantation of 50 indigenous trees by approaching the Divisional Forest Officer, Ludhiana and for their maintenance for a period of 05 years.”
The Bench remarked that it is not the function of the Judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best interests.
Advocate Amit Khari appeared for the Petitioner, while Addl. AG Saurav Verma and Advocate Ketan Chopra appeared for the Respondents.
Case Background
In 2014, a woman had sustained injuries in a roadside accident who was admitted to the hospital. The said patient’s son disclosed that the accident had occurred in front of the PSPCL office outside Chhauni Mohalla near Shiv Mandir. Subsequently, the ruqa was sent to Police Station and an application was moved for recording the statement of the patient. However, the attending doctor declared her unfit to make a statement. Thereafter, the Complainant (patient’s son) recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer (IO), stating that on the day of incident, he and his mother were returning on his motorcycle. He stated that when they reached near the PSPCL office, a car came from behind at high speed being driven rashly and negligently, and struck their motorcycle.
As a result, according to him, both he and his mother fell onto the road, sustaining injuries. The nearby public gathered, and both were taken to hospital in the said car. Allegedly, the driver of the car fled from the spot thereafter and later, the Complainant came to know the name of the accused driver i.e., the Petitioner herein. The accident was alleged to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said accused. Hence, an FIR was registered and the Petitioner was chargesheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 427, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years along with a fine of Rs. 100/-. This was under challenge before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, observed, “As per the settled principles of law governing the grant of probation, the benefit of probation is ordinarily extended to cases where the circumstances indicate a mere minor conflict with law instead of inherent criminal propensity or conduct reflecting a hardened or incorrigible disposition. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is reformative and rehabilitative and not punitive. It aims to reintegrate an offender into the mainstream of society where such reintegration appears feasible.”
The Court said that in this case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the Petitioner possesses a criminal bent of mind or that his conduct poses any threat to society and hence, by the broader principles of criminal jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against him.
“The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial function that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This balance must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies, requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the changing demands of justice”, it added.
The Court noted that the punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity and the imposition of suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond what is indispensable for the preservation of social order.
“While ‘retributive’ object of sentencing is seen regressive, in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus on punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the rehabilitative/reformative approach examines the circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical, physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish between a ‘criminal’ and an ‘offender’.”, it further observed.
The Court remarked that while the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish two persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for sentencing and a mere involvement of a person in crime may not necessarily mark a person as a ‘criminal.’
“Criminality in mind and action has to be determined from the totality of circumstances including the mode and manner in committing an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from actions propelled by mens rea”, it also said.
Conclusion
Furthermore, the Court was of the view that this case is yet another where interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach.
“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and the mitigating circumstances enumerated above, I deem it appropriate to direct release of the petitioner on probation on furnishing an undertaking of keeping peace and good behaviour for two years to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner shall also remain under the supervision of the concerned probation officer during the aforesaid period. In the event of the petitioner failing to comply with the said direction or committing breach of the undertaking given by him, he shall be called upon to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him in the present case”, it directed.
The Court concluded that in the event of the Petitioner not being in the capacity to deposit the cost of maintenance for a period of 05 years, he shall offer his services to the department of forests to set off the said cost as per the wages of an unskilled workers equal to adequate labour men hours for the equivalent period as prescribed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Petition.
Cause Title- Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:158179)
