CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

"Allahabad High Court Grants Probation in 24-Year-Old Assault Case: Emphasizes on Reform over Punishment"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment emphasizing the principles of reformative justice, the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has modified the sentence of three appellants in a two-decade-old assault case. Justice Shamim Ahmed, presiding over the matter, underscored the essence of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, stating, "The object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him."

The case, which dates back to the year 2000, involved a property dispute leading to a physical assault. The appellants, Rajendra Yadav and others, were convicted under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) by the trial court and sentenced to one year of imprisonment. Challenging this decision, the appellants moved the High Court under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

In a noteworthy observation, Justice Ahmed referred to the rulings of the Supreme Court in cases like Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. and Ratan Lal vs State of Punjab. The court noted, "The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology." This reflects a shift towards understanding the circumstances and character of the offender rather than solely focusing on the punitive aspects of the law.

The defense argued for the application of probation, citing the delay in the trial and the absence of any further criminal antecedents against the appellants. The court, acknowledging these factors and the age of the case, decided to extend the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellants are directed to file two sureties each along with their personal bonds and an undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior for a period of one year.

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in balancing the scales of justice with a humanizing approach, considering the broader social implications of imprisonment versus the opportunity for rehabilitation and reformation. The court's decision has been welcomed by legal experts as a progressive step in the evolution of the Indian criminal justice system.

Date of Decided : 20-03-2024

RAJENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Latest Legal News