LAKHVIR SINGH ETC versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 19-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
269
LAKHVIR SINGH ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 47-48 of 2021)
JANUARY 19, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Object of legislation –
Held: To give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of
good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment – Thus,
increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of
offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without
subjecting them to deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to
be subserved.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.6 – Appellants were
convicted by trial court for offence under s.397 IPC and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years each – High Court
dismissed the appeal against the conviction by trial court –
Appellants filed special leave petition and annexed compromise deed
arrived at between the complainant and the appellants in terms
whereof the complainant had stated that he did not want to pursue
any action against the appellants and has no objection to their
release on bail on acquittal – Appellants have already served about
50% of their sentence while in custody – The prosecution however
objected that the minimum sentence provided by the statute under
s.397 IPC is seven years and the same cannot be reduced below
that period – On this submission, the appellants-convicts sought
benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act – Held: Appellants
were below 21 years of age as on the date of offence – The benefit
of probation under the  Act is not excluded by the provisions of the
mandatory minimum sentence under s.397 of IPC, the offence in
the present case – Appellants have not served out the minimum
sentence of seven years though they have served about half the
sentences – They were aged under 19 and 21 years of age as on the
date of offence but not on the date of sentence – The redeeming
feature in their case is that the person who suffered, appears to
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 269
269
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
have forgiven them, possibly with the passage of time – No adverse
report has been brought to notice against them about their conduct
in jail – Fit case to extend benefit of probation to the appellants
under the Act in view of the provisions of s.4 of the Act on completion
of half the sentence – Appellants are released on probation of good
conduct under s.4 of the Act on their completion of half the sentence
and on their entering into a bond with two sureties each to ensure
that they will maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining
part of their sentence, failing which they can be called upon to
serve that part of the sentence – Penal Code, 1860 – s.397.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.4 – Essential feature of
– Held: “notwithstanding” contained in s.4 permits, despite anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court to
release a person on bond, with or without sureties, for a period of
three years instead of sentencing him in order to ensure that he
keeps peace and good behaviour –  In this regard, under sub-section
(2), before making any order under sub-section (1), the court is
required to take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation
officer concerned in relation to the case.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.6 – Determining factors
while giving benefit under – Held:  The relevant aspects while giving
benefit under s.6 of the Act are: the nature of offence, the character
of the offender, and the surrounding circumstances as recorded in
the probation officer’s report.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.4 and s.6 – Distinction
between – Held: s.4 is distinct from s.6 as it is discretionary in nature
while s.6 provides that a court “must not” sentence a person under
the age of 21 years to imprisonment unless sufficient reasons for
the same are recorded, based on due consideration of the probation
officer’s report.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.6 – Applicability of –
Held: Appellants were under 21 years of age on the date of the
offence and not on the date of conviction, s.6 would not come to
their aid.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on
probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to
imprisonment.  Thus, increasing emphasis on 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.