Holding

The appellant is entitled to release on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The appellant, Ved Prakash, was convicted of a firearm offence arising from a land dispute. The trial court sentenced him without considering the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the sentencing court had a duty to collect the offender's social and personal background to determine eligibility for probation. Relying on the probation officer's report, which highlighted the appellant's young age, clean antecedents, stable family and occupation, the Court found that he qualified for release on probation. The Court emphasized that sentencing is a discretionary, rehabilitative exercise and that courts must actively seek mitigating factors. Consequently, the Court ordered the appellant's release under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, with a bond, sureties, and supervision conditions. The appeal was allowed, replacing imprisonment with probation.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in not invoking Section 360 CrPC and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for sentencing the appellant.
Whether the appellant, a young first‑time offender with stable background, is eligible for release on probation.
What duty the sentencing court has to collect social and personal factors of the offender for a rehabilitative sentence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 360
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 4(1)

Subjects

sentencing discretionprobationcriminal procedurerehabilitationyoung offendersocial backgroundcourt duty

Judgment

<-;), -1

.., .. _, ,,,;
~
. ' :.: [

VED PRAKASH A
•
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
November 13, 1980
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
Sentencing exercise by the Court-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
Section 360 read with Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958- ·
Duty of the Bench and .the Bm:, explained.
Maintaining the conviction, alfowing the appeals as to, sentence and
releasing the accused on Probation. the. Court. c
HELD : Sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion
't' ancl not a routine .or mechanical prescription acting as hunch. The social
background ano the personal factors of the crime-doer . are very relevant,
although in practice Criminal eourts have hardly paid attention to the social
milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if Section 360
Criminal Procedure Codie is not attacted, it is the duty of the sentencing court
to be activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on punishment
with a rehabilitating slant. The Bench must fulfil the humanising mission of
sentencing implicit in such enactments as the Probation of Offenders Act. [1279
H, 12SOA-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Appeal Nos. 29}-
292 of 1980. ·l
E
(Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order
_. dated the 10th of February, 1977 of the Punjab and Haryana Hrgh
Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 430, 828 and 429/73.)
~"( A. P. Mohanty and S. K. Sabharwal for the Appellant.
R. N. Poddar for the Respondent. F
The Order of the Court was' delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-ln this. case, the question of dealing
with the appellant under S. 360 Cr.P.C. remains to be considered.
For this purpose we had directed that .a report be called for from the
Probation Officer having jurisdiction. That report has been put in. G
His age, according to the Jail Doctor, was 24 years on 23-4-1973
which means that on the date of the offence, he was less' than 21
years old; ·The offence, for which conviction has been rendered, is
Orie which will be attracted by S. 360 or at any rate the Probation of
·offenders Act, 1958. The materials before us are iniperfect because
the Trial Court h~ beell perfunctory in discharging its sentencing H
functions. We must emphasise that sentencing an accused person iS
1280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198i] 1 S.C.R.

.A a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical
prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court should have collected
materials necessary to help award a just punishment in t4e circum-
stances. The social background and the personal factors of the crime-
doer are 'Very relevant although in practice Criminal Courts · have
hardly paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circum-
B stances of the offender. Even if S. 360 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, it is
the duty of the sentencing Court to be activist enough to collect such
facts as have a bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant.
The absence of such materials, in the present case has left us with
little assistance even from the counsel. Indeed members of the bar
also do not pay sufficient attention to these legislative provisions
c which relate to dealing with an offender in such manner that he
becomes a non-offender. We emphasise this because the legislations
which relate to amelioration in punishment have been regarded as
'Minor Acts' and, therefore, of little consequence. This is a totally
wrong approach and even if the Bar does not help, the Bench must
fulfil the humanising mission of sentencing implicit in such enactments
D
a~ the Probation of Offenders Act. In the present case, the offender
is a young person and his antecedents have no blemish. His life is
not unsettled or restless and the report indicates that he is an agricul-
turist, pursuing a peaceful vocation. His parents are alive and he
lrns a wife and children to maintain. These are stablising factors in
E. life. A long period of litigation and the little period of imprisonment
suffered, will surely serve as a deterrant. We are mindful of the fact
that a fire-arm has been used by the appellant and we cannot sleep
over the gravity of the offence. Nevertheless, the report of the
Probation Officer states that the appellant is not given to any bad •
habits or stresses of poverty. 1 A land dispute led to the crime and
F that does not survive any longer. The Probation Officer recommends
that an opportunity be given to the appellant to improve himself and
bring. up liis family by honest labour as an agriculturist so that the
interests of social defence may be secured. We are inclined to agree
that in this case the appellant may be given the benefit of the Proba-
tion of Offenders Act. We are satisfied that the offender has a fixed
G place of abode and regular occupation. We are inclined also to rely
on the Probatron· Officer's report which supports the direction for
release on probation. We, therefore, direct that the appellant be
released under S. 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and
instead of sentencing him, direct that he be released on his ·entering
into a bond before the trial Court with two sureties, one of whom
H shall be his father, to appear and receive sentence when called upon
during the period.of three years from the date of release and in the
meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In addi~ion,
VED PRAKASH v. HARYANA (Krishnl/Iyer, J.) 1281

we pass an order that the Probation Officer shall have supervision A
over the offender for a period of one year and shall.make reports once
· every three months to the Sessions 'court about the conduct of the
offender. We direct further, that the appellant shall be specially
( supervised from the point of consumption of intoxicants and tli~
matter brought to the notice of the Court in case the appellant
violates. The undertaking to be incorporated in hrs bond shall con- B
tain a term that he shall not consume alcohol during the period
covered by the bond. We allow the appeais· in the manner above
indicated.
/

S.R. Appeal allowed . c
••

.•

GIPN-S6-6 S. c. India (ND)/81-23-7·&1-2,500.