Rajjan And Others v. State of U.P.

oldest pending cases in this High Court for priority basis.

#4. As per the office report dated 17.03.2026, appellant No. 7 Ram Dhan has died on 28.11.2022, accordingly, the appeal against the appellant No. 7 Ram Dhan stands abated. Further, as per the said report, appellant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are alive, but no one has appeared for the surviving appellant Nos. 5, 6 and 8.

#5. With the assistance of learned State counsel and from the perusal of records, it transpires that the appellant Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are surviving 2 CRLA No. 2177 of 1983 while appellant No. 1 Rajjan and appellant No. 2 Purshottam have been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced each of them to R.I. for a period of 3 years, and one year's R.I. under Section 148 IPC and six months' R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC and appellant No. 4 Brij Bhan, appellant No. 5 Ram Nain, appellant No. 6 Jawahar and appellant No. 8 Ram Lakhan are sentenced to one year's R.I. under Section 147 IPC, two years' R.I. under Section 324/149 IPC and six months R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC.

#6. In the case of Subhash Chand & others Vs. State of U.P. (2015 Law Suit (All) 1343) and the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 1999 (Hargovind & Others vs. State of U.P.) passed by this Court on

11.01.2019. Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows: "3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.- When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4."

#7. Thus, this was the bounden duty of the learned Trial Court and also the appellate court to consider why they did not proceed to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows: "4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.-(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any 3 CRLA No. 2177 of 1983 punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2)Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."

#8. A similar provision finds place in the Code of Criminal Procedure. There, Section 360 provides: "360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition : (1) When any person not under twenty- one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty- one years of age or any woman is- convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the 4 CRLA No. 2177 of 1983 offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub- section (2). 2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub- section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken. (3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition. (4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law: Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this sub- section inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted. (6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section. (7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender under sub- section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular 5 CRLA No. 2177 of 1983 occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions. (8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension. (9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence. (10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958 ), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960 ), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders." Again, Section 361 reads as below: "361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases.- Where in any case the Court could have dealt with- (a) an accused persons under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or (b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so."

#9. These statutory provisions very emphatically lay down the reformatory and correctional object of sentencing and obligates the trial court as well as appellate courts to give benefit of probation in fit cases as provided under law. Unfortunately, this branch of law has not been much utilized by the trial courts. It becomes more relevant and important in our system of administration of justice where trial is often concluded after a long time and by the time decision assumes finality, the very purpose of sentencing looses its efficacy as with the passage of time the penological and social priorities change and there remains no need to inflict punishment of imprisonment, particularly when the offence involved is not serious. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the 6 CRLA No. 2177 of 1983 conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.

#10. In this instant case, the court below has not considered the probation law although the appellant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are surviving while appellant No. 1 Rajjan and appellant No. 2 Purshottam have been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced each of them to R.I. for a period of 3 years, and one year's R.I. under Section 148 IPC and six months' R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC and appellant No. 4 Brij Bhan, appellant No. 5 Ram Nain, appellant No. 6 Jawahar and appellant No. 8 Ram Lakhan are sentenced to one year's R.I. under Section 147 IPC, two years' R.I. under Section 324/149 IPC and six months R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC for which the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for the maximum period of three years' rigorous imprisonment and appellant Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 were convicted for the maximum period of two years' rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, the benefit of probation could have been given in view of the law referred above. But, while awarding sentence this aspect was not considered. The learned court below did not even write a single word as to why the benefit of this beneficial legislation was not given to the accused whereas it was mandatory to do so under the provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the occurrence relates to the year 1983 and therefore, no purpose of justice will be served if the appellants are sent to jail to undergo the terms of sentence after lapse of such long time.

#11. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash vs State