High Court Grants Probation in Trivial Offence Case Citing Accused’s Old Age and Academic Achievements
In a recent ruling by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, a Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2011 came under scrutiny. The case involved the accused, Ram Pratap alias Pratap Yadav, who was convicted under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the High Court upheld the judgment and order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, affirming the conviction.
The Court examined various objections raised during the trial, such as the unavailability of the carbon copy of the General Diary (G.D.) and discrepancies in the time of occurrence. It found that the prosecution’s case was credible and admissible, as adequately addressed by the Trial Court. The witness testimonies established the place of occurrence, leaving no room for doubt.
Addressing the discrepancy in the time of occurrence between the Non-Cognizable Report (N.C.R.) and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the Court deemed it immaterial, stating, “one hour variation in time of incident is immaterial.”
Moreover, the Court addressed objections related to the admissibility of medical evidence due to a name difference in the doctor’s record, terming it a mere slip of the pen, and thereby allowing the evidence to stand.
One of the key arguments made by the accused’s counsel was the plea for leniency in sentencing. The counsel cited the elapse of 25 years since the incident, the accused’s old age (senior citizen), and the absence of any prior criminal history. Additionally, they emphasized the accused’s academic and professional achievements.
The Court considered several relevant precedents where individuals convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder were released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Taking into account the trivial nature of the offence and the accused being a first-time offender, the Court decided to release the accused on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
In the final ruling, the High Court granted probation to the accused, Ram Pratap alias Pratap Yadav, based on the grounds of his age, character, antecedents, and academic achievements. The accused was directed to appear and receive sentence if called upon during the specified probation period, subject to keeping the peace and maintaining good behavior.
Date of Decision: 21 July 2023
Ram Pratap @ Pratap Yadav vs State of U.P.
