Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to a man convicted by a trial court in Rangia under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty. The court noted that the nature of the offence in this case was not heinous, granting the petitioner an alternative to imprisonment.
The petitioner, an employee of N.F. Railways, was convicted for subjecting his wife to cruelty under Section 498(A) of the IPC. The trial court had sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 5,000. Subsequently, he challenged the trial court’s judgment, dated November 1, 2011, by filing a criminal revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Additionally, the petitioner filed an application seeking the benefit of Sections 360 and 361 of the CrPC and Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Act allows certain offenders to be released on probation or after admonition. Section 4 empowers courts to release offenders on probation of good conduct, while Section 12 removes disqualifications attached to a conviction.
The petitioner also challenged the Additional Sessions Judge’s appellate judgment, dated June 19, 2013, which upheld the trial court’s conviction order. He argued for leniency on the grounds that he had sent maintenance payments to his former wife, which she had refused to accept, and that he was a first-time offender with no prior convictions.
The High Court, referring to Supreme Court judgments, highlighted that the Probation of Offenders Act is a progressive step in reforming penology. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sita Ram Paswan v. State of Bihar (2005), the High Court emphasized that courts must consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender while exercising discretion under the Act.
The Supreme Court had also held that such discretionary power can be exercised by courts even during appellate or revisional proceedings or by the Apex Court while hearing appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.
In the present case, the High Court observed that the offence dated back to February 11, 2008, and could not be deemed heinous given the specific circumstances. It noted that both the victim and the accused had remarried. The accused had also offered mehr (a sum of Rs 1,01,000) and paid maintenance awarded by the court. Furthermore, the wife had withdrawn the maintenance case, indicating a resolution of issues.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case where the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should be given to the accused petitioner by this court in exercise of its revisional power,” the judgment stated.
The High Court directed the petitioner to file two sureties of Rs 20,000 each and a personal bond before the trial court, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year. The court also invoked Section 12 of the Act, ruling that the conviction should not adversely affect the petitioner’s service or pensionary benefits.
Also Read: During Left rule, party cadres were govt’s top priority: Shah