Suresh vs St Of Hry

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
Suresh
......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate-Legal Aid Counsel
for the appellant.
Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.
, .
SURYA PARTAP SINGH J (Oral) :
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction dated 15.07.2005 and order of sentence dated
16.07.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Sonepat,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. the FIR No.131 dated 16.07.2002, was lodged at the instance of ‘Jagat
Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only . The abovesaid FIR
was lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 392 and
328 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gannaur. In the wake of
abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an
outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant along with his co-accused,
namely ‘Yogesh’, ‘Bharat’ and ‘Virender’, was sent to face trial before the
learned trial Court.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 2
3. The appellant along with above-named co-accused participated in
the abovementioned trial. By virtue of judgment dated 15.07.2005, hereinafter
being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into
conviction of the appellant and his accused namely ‘Yogesh’ for the
commission of offence under Section 411 IPC. However, the remaining co-
accused were acquitted. Thus, vide order dated 16.07.2005, on the point of
quantum of sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’,
following sentence was awarded to the appellant:-
Offence under
Section Sentence
411 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years
It was also ordered that the period of detention, if any, already
undergone by the accused, during the course of trial, would be set-off in
accordance with law.
4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this
case came into being at the instance of ‘Jagat Singh ’ (the complainant herein).
It was stated by the above named complainant that on 16.07.2002, when he
parked his car, make Indica bearing registration No.HR-06H-9373 at taxi stand
near Gohana Turn. According to complainant, at about 11:00 a.m., four
persons, namely ‘Suresh’, ‘Yogesh’, ‘Bharat’ and ‘Virender’, approached him
and hired the above mentioned vehicle for travelling to Kakroi Road, Sonepat,
against a fare of Rs.650/-. As per complainant, after boarding the car, they
asked him to stop near a juice vendor at Geeta Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat,
where ‘Suresh’, ‘Yogesh’ and ‘Bharat’ alighted from the car to have juice, and
‘Virender’ remained inside the car with the complainant.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 3
5. It was further alleged by the complainant that after consuming the
juice, he (the complainant) experienced severe dizziness, whereupon all four
accused forcibly removed him from the driver's seat and shifted him to the
middle part of rear seat. According to complainant, thereafter accused ‘Yogesh’
took over the control of steering wheel and drove the car towards the fields
near village Chatiya. As per complainant, there they forcibly dropped the
complainant from the car and abandoned him there. It was further alleged by
the complainant that before leaving the spot with stolen Indica car all the
accused persons threatened him of dire consequences in case he reported the
incident to the police. According to complainant, after regaining
consciousness, he reported the matter to the police.
6. It was a case of the prosecution that on the basis of
abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the
investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site
plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses under
Section 161 CrPC, and completed other formalities of investigation.
Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed.
7. Heard.
8. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court
were perverse and unsustainable. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the unreliable
and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution was believed by
the learned trial Court. As per learned counsel for the appellant , the learned
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 4
trial Court failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case, and merely,
on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the finding of conviction of appellant,
for the commission of offence under Section 411 of IPC, was recorded.
9. It has been further contended on behalf of appellant that the
learned trial Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that
the prosecution had to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable
doubts. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence adduced
by the prosecution was grossly inadequate to draw an inference that all the
essential ingredients, meant for the commission of offence, for which the
appellant was convicted, had been proved. In view of above, the learned
counsel for the appellant has contended that the case against the appellant was
not proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the learned trial Court returned
the finding of conviction.
10. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
the appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not
inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial
Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has categorically contended that at
this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order on
the point of quantum of sentence only.
11. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2002. According to
learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the agony of litigation
for the last more than 24 years and has, in fact, already suffered more
punishment than he deserved. According to learned counsel for the appellant,
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 5
before or after the offence, related to present case, the appellant has not been
prosecuted for any other offence.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that in
the present case, the sentence of three years was awarded to the appellant. As
per learned counsel for the appellant, with regard to abovementioned
conviction, it is relevant to note here that the appellant was not previous
convict and even after the abovementioned offence, he did not indulge in any
kind of criminal activity. In view of above, the learned counsel for the
appellant has requested that the appellant may be accorded the benefit of
probation/admonition.
13. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent/State has
argued that the appellant was found guilty for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 411 of IPC. According to learned counsel for the
respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a
period of three years, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not
entitled to a sentence of less than three years. As per learned counsel for the
respondent/State, the instant appeal has no merits and deserves dismissal.
14. The record has been perused carefully.
15. Although it is categorical stand of the appellant that he is not
challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, yet,
with a purpose to evaluate evidence, the record has been perused carefully. A
perusal of trial Court record shows that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution was thoroughly consistent, and good enough to bring home guilt of
the appellant, for which he was charge-sheeted. Thus, it is hereby held that
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 6
there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellant, for the offence
under Section 411 of IPC. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby
affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby
dismissed.
16. If factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires that
following are the points which are required to be taken into consideration: -
(a) that the incident in question had taken place more than 24
years ago;
(b) that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for the
last more than 24 years;
(c) that admittedly the appellant at the time of commission of
alleged offence was first offender;
(d) that minimum sentence for the offence committed by the
appellant has not been prescribed;
(e) that the appellant has no criminal history and in the last more
than 24 years, the appellant has not been prosecuted for any
offence, whatsoever; and
(f) that the age appellant as of now must be more than 45 years.
17. As far as the benefit of probation is concerned, the relevant princi-
ples have been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of ‘Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar’ (1972) 2 SCC 633. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India while considering the scope of the Probation Act has
held as under: -
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 7
“ The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view
to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on
probation or after due admonition and for matters connected
therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of
youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their as-
sociation with hardened criminals of mature age in case the
youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail.
The above object is in consonance with the present trend in the
field of penology, according to which effort should be made to
bring about correction and reformation of the individual offend-
ers and not to resort to retributive justice. Modern criminal ju-
risprudence recognises that no one is a born criminal and that a
good many crimes are the product of socioeconomic milieu. Al-
though not much can be done for hardened criminals, consider-
able stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young of-
fenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their
association with hardened criminals. The Act gives statutory
recognition to the above objective. It is, therefore, provided that
youthful offenders should not be sent to jail, except in certain cir-
cumstances. Before, however, the benefit of the Act can be in-
voked, it has to be shown that the convicted person even though
less than 21 years of age, is not guilty of an offence punishable
with imprisonment for life. This is clear from the language of Sec-
tion 6 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of that section reads as under: -
“ When any person under twenty-one years of age is found
guilty of having committed an offence punishable with im-
prisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the Court
by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him
to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to
the circumstances of the case including the nature of the of-
fence and the character of the offender, it would not be de-
sirable to deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4, and if
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 8
the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the of-
fender, it shall record its reasons for doing so.”
18. The similar question was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in a subsequent judgment, i.e. in the case of ‘Chellammal and
Another v. State’ 2025 SCC Online SC 870. In the abovementioned case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under: -
“ On consideration of the precedents and based on a comparative
study of Section 360, Cr. P.C. and subsection (1) of Section 4 of
the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the latter is wider and
expansive in its coverage than the former. Inter alia, while Sec-
tion 360 permits release of an offender, more twenty one years
old, on probation when he is sentenced to imprisonment for less
than seven years or fine, Section 4 of the Probation Act enables a
court to exercise its discretion in any case where the offender is
found to have committed an offence such that he is punishable
with any sentence other than death or life imprisonment. Addi-
tionally, the non-obstante clause in subsection gives overriding
effect to sub-section (1) of Section 4 over any other law for the
time being in force. Also, it is noteworthy that Section 361, Cr.
P.C. itself, being a subsequent legislation, engrafts a provision
that in any case where the court could have dealt with an accused
under the provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it
shall record in its judgment the special reasons therefor.
What logically follows from a conjoint reading of sub-section (1)
of Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section 361, Cr. P.C. is that
if Section 360, Cr. P.C. were not applicable in a particular case,
there is no reason why Section 4 of the Probation Act would not
be attracted.
Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an of-
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 9
fender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of
right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions
seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of
this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Proba-
tion Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case
where the circumstances stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of
the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to
omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation;
on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to con-
sider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender
upon fulfillment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant
of probation could be decided either way. In the event, the court
in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may
upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such
conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the answer be
in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the court to
record the reasons therefor.”
19. Following the precedents discussed above, and taking into
consideration the abovementioned factors, it is hereby observed that the ends
of justice would be better served, if the benefit of probation is accorded to the
appellant and he is released on probation of good conduct. In my considered
opinion, in the given fact situation, instead of awarding sentence to undergo
imprisonment for the period fixed by the learned trial Court, it shall be more
appropriate that the appellant is given the benefit of probation of good
behaviour, mandated under Section-360 of CrPC.
20. Accordingly, the instant appeal is partly allowed with regard to
order on quantum of sentence and the same is hereby modified to the extent
that the appellant shall be released on probation for a period of one year on
furnishing requisite bonds before the learned trial Court. The appellant shall
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1267-SB-2005 (O&M) 10
undertake to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one year.
Obvious to say that in case of default with regard to terms & conditions of
probation order, the appellant shall receive sentence as and when called upon
to do so.
21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
05.11.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.05 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document