Punishing the Offender Must Not Mean Penalising His Family: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Probation to Rash Driving Convict After 20 Years of Legal Battle

“Releasing the convict on probation would serve the ends of justice better than incarceration… Sending a first offender to jail is often counterproductive” – Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered a significant verdict emphasising the reformative spirit of Indian criminal jurisprudence. While upholding the conviction of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 201 IPC, the Court modified the sentence, directing his release on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of sending him to jail.

Justice Virender Singh, presiding over the matter, made it clear that criminal justice must not be retributive in nature, especially for first-time offenders whose acts, though criminally negligent, do not warrant imprisonment that could disrupt not only their lives but also the lives of their innocent family members.

“Sending a First Offender to Jail Does Not Produce Good Results”—Court Asserts the Reformative Foundation of Indian Penal Policy

The High Court observed that the goal of sentencing must be correction, not mere punishment, particularly where the offender shows potential for reform. Emphasising the constitutional philosophy of rehabilitation, the Court stated:

“It has been realized that sending the first offender to jail, to undergo substantive sentence, does not produce good results, as, the first offender/convict, sometimes, may come in contact with the hardened criminals.”

The petitioner, Ram Krishan, had been convicted in 2009 for causing injuries to two persons while driving rashly and for attempting to conceal evidence of the accident. While the conviction was sustained, the High Court noted that he had already suffered the “agony of litigation” for two decades, had maintained a clean record, and was the sole breadwinner for his family.

The Court remarked:

“Rejecting the prayer of the convict to release him on probation would amount to punishing his family members, for the offences committed by the convict.”

“Probation Is a Constructive Alternative to Imprisonment”—Court Finds Long Delay, Clean Record, and Family Responsibility Justify Leniency

After considering the report of the Probation Officer, the Court recorded that the petitioner’s conduct had been good in the past years. All previous FIRs either ended in acquittal or compromise, and no criminal case was pending against him. Noting this, Justice Virender Singh observed:

“The Probation Officer has specifically mentioned that the conduct of the convict, during past years, in the society, is good.”

Addressing the power of courts to exercise discretion in such cases, the High Court invoked the observations of the Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, but clarified that the principle of deterrence applicable to Section 304-A IPC cases does not bar probation in every case involving negligent driving. The Court added:

“The power of the Court to extend the benefit of probation depends upon the nature of the offence committed. Releasing the convicted person on probation must appear to the Court to be expedient.”

“Nature of Offence Must Be Considered, But Not at the Cost of Justice”—Court Affirms Conviction But Modifies Sentence to Probation

Referring to the law laid down in State through CBI v. Sanjiv Bhalla (2015) 13 SCC 444 and Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi (2008) 4 SCC 185, the Court reiterated that probation can be extended even in cases involving rash driving, provided the facts and circumstances justify a reformatory approach.

The Court held:

“There is no legal hesitation to extend the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.”

Despite upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandi, and confirmed by the Sessions Court, the High Court found it “expedient” and “suitable” to modify the sentence.

“Considering the nature of the offences… it would be expedient to release the convict on probation of good conduct, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence.”

“Sentence Modified in the Interest of Justice; Probation Bond and Compensation Ordered”

Instead of sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment, the High Court directed him to be released on probation, upon executing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety, for two years, with the condition to maintain peace and good behaviour. Additionally, the Court ordered:

“The convict is also directed to deposit a sum of ₹5,000, which shall be in addition to the fine amount already deposited by him… The said amount shall be paid to the injured persons, namely Ravi Saini and Hitesh Saini, as compensation.”

The Court cautioned that any violation of the conditions would automatically revive the original sentence, and in that event, the petitioner must surrender before the Trial Court.

“Criminal Jurisprudence Is Reformative, Not Retributive”—Justice Emphasises Human-Centric Justice

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling is a noteworthy application of compassionate jurisprudence, especially in cases involving non-heinous offences, first-time offenders, and long delays. The Court summed up the essence of its decision by asserting:

“Probation is a kind of non-custodial sentence… a reformatory measure to achieve the object, by giving an opportunity to the convict, to reform himself, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence.”

In concluding, the Court underscored the principle that punishment should not defeat the very idea of justice, especially when reformation is possible, and the crime is not punishable with life imprisonment or death.

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025