-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“Reformation, not retribution, must guide the sentencing of first-time, non-hardened offenders. The stigma of jail should not eclipse the chance of a law-abiding life,” In a progressive judgment delivered on 28 July 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (Criminal Revision No. 1746 of 2025 (O&M)) upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, invoking the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Court modified the sentence and directed her release on probation, emphasizing that sending her back to jail after nine years of litigation and 25 days of imprisonment would defeat the reformative objective of modern criminal jurisprudence.
Justice Manisha Batra stressed that the purpose of probation laws is to prevent amateur offenders from becoming hardened criminals through exposure to prison environments.
“Probation Law Is Meant to Rescue, Not Punish the Misguided First Offender”—Court Applies Reformative Theory
The petitioner, Sukhwinder Kaur, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhlada, in 2019 for offences arising from FIR No. 23 dated 27.04.2016, under Sections 148, 325, 323, 427 and 149 IPC. She was sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment. Her appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa on 02.07.2025.
In the criminal revision, the petitioner did not press the case on merits but instead confined her plea to seeking release on probation.
Probation and Sentencing Policy:
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had already undergone 25 days of imprisonment, and there was no allegation of repeat criminal conduct since the registration of the FIR in 2016. Observing her peaceful conduct and the non-grave nature of the offence, the Court asked:
“Would the cause of justice be served better by continued incarceration or by offering a structured chance at rehabilitation?”
Referring to Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2522, the Court reiterated:
“The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to prevent conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals… Modern jurisprudence emphasizes correction and reformation, not retribution.”
It also cited Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas, AIR 1974 SC 1818, which held:
“The stigma and social ignominy of jail can sometimes make punishment more ruinous than the crime. Probation helps nip this danger in the bud.”
The Court summarized the legislative intent thus:
“The non-obstante clause of Section 4 of the Probation Act reflects legislative intent to allow liberal construction in favour of reformation, provided the offender’s background and nature of the crime warrant it.”
Convinced that the case met the statutory and reformative criteria under Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C., the Court ordered:
“The petitioner shall be released on probation on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.”
She was directed:
To remain of good behaviour for one year;
To disclose her current address and phone number before the trial court in an affidavit;
To face revival of sentence if found indulging in any illegal activities.
While the conviction was maintained, the sentence of imprisonment was modified to probation for one year.
This judgment affirms that reformative justice is not soft justice—it is the future of penal jurisprudence. The Court’s nuanced view ensures that the petitioner is held accountable, but not destroyed by punitive excess. The ruling preserves societal interest while protecting the offender from the crippling consequences of incarceration for a minor offence committed nearly a decade ago.
Date of Decision: 28 July 2025
