Rajkumar Singh (Abated Vide Honble courts order 09-03-2026) vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.589 of 2005
======================================================
1. Rajkumar Singh (Abated Vide Honble courts order 09-03-2026) son of
Mulshi Singh Resident of village- Bharkhar, Ps- Brahmpur, Dist- Buxar
2. Dhruv Singh (Abated Vide Honble courts order 09-03-2026) son of
shivpujan singh Resident of village- Bharkhar, Ps- Brahmpur, Dist- Buxar
3. Hare Ram Singh son of Dhruv singh Resident of village- Bharkhar, Ps-
Brahmpur, Dist- Buxar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-04-2026
1. The appeal is arising out of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 24.09.2005 passed by the Learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No. 2, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 262 of
1992, arising out of Brahmpur Police Station Case
No. 117 of 1991, whereby and whereunder the
appellants were convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 324/323 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. On hearing the point of
sentence, the trial Court released the appellants

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.589 of 2005 dt.23-04-2026
2/7
under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the
Probation of Offenders Act, directing them to
execute a bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties of
like amount each for a period of one year, during
which the appellants were required to maintain
peace and be of good behaviour, and in case of
any adverse report during the said period, they
would be called upon to receive the sentence.
2. The appeal has been preferred under
Section 11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958. As the appeal is of the year 2005, this Court
called for a report from the Superintendent of
Police, Buxar, with regard to the live status of the
appellants.
3. In compliance with the order of this
Court, the Superintendent of Police, Buxar,
addressed a letter dated 10.09.2024 stating that
appellant No. 3/ Hare Ram Singh is still alive.
However, appellant No. 1/ Raj Kumar Singh died on
17.09.2016, and appellant No. 2/ Dhruv Singh died
on 18.08.2023, and their death certificates have
also been enclosed therein. Accordingly, this Court

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.589 of 2005 dt.23-04-2026
3/7
has abated the appeal as against appellant Nos. 1
and 2 and proceeds further only with respect to
appellant No. 3.
4. Heard the Learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, the
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
5. Section 11 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 reads as follows:-
“ 11. Courts competent to
make order under the Act, appeal
and revision and powers of courts
in appeal and revision.—(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code or any other law, an order
under this Act, may be made by any
court empowered to try and sentence
the offender to imprisonment and also
by the High Court or any other court
when the case comes before it on
appeal or in revision.
(2) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code, where an order
under section 3 or section 4 is made
by any court trying the offender (other
than a High Court), an appeal shall lie
to the court to which appeals
ordinarily lie from the sentences of
the former court.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.589 of 2005 dt.23-04-2026
4/7
(3) In any case where any
person under twenty-one years of age
is found guilty of having committed an
offence and the court by which he is
found guilty declines to deal with him
under section 3 or section 4, and
passes against him any sentence of
imprisonment with or without fine
from which no appeal lies or is
preferred, then, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code or any
other law, the court to which appeals
ordinarily lie from the sentences of
the former court may, either of its own
motion or on an application made to it
by the convicted person or the
probation officer, call for and examine
the record of the case and pass such
order thereon as it thinks fit.
(4) When an order has been
made under section 3 or section 4 in
respect of an offender, the Appellate
Court or the High Court in the exercise
of its power of revision may set aside
such order and in lieu thereof pass
sentence on such offender according
to law:
Provided that the Appellate
Court or the High Court in revision
shall not inflict a greater punishment
than might have been inflicted by the
court by which the offender was found

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.589 of 2005 dt.23-04-2026
5/7
guilty”.
6. As per Section 11(2) of the Act,
where any order under section 3 or section 4 is
made by any court, trying the offender (other than
a High Court), an appeal shall lie to the court to
which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of
the former court.
7. Admittedly, the appellant has
preferred the appeal before this Court in the year
2005, has not moved any application for
suspension of his sentence, as he was released on
probation. The appeal came up for hearing after 21
years. The period of the order passed under
Section 4 of the Act, has been successfully
complied with, by the appellant, as he has not
violated the conditions imposed on him by the trial
Court.
8. Section 12 of the Probation of
Offenders Act provides:-
12. Removal of disqualification
attaching to conviction .—
Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law, a person found guilty of
an offence and dealt with under the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.589 of 2005 dt.23-04-2026
6/7
provisions of section 3 or section 4
shall not suffer disqualification, if any,
attaching to a conviction of an offence
under such law:
Provided that nothing in this section
shall apply to a person who, after his
release under section 4 is
subsequently sentenced for the
original offence.
9. Mr. Digvijay Kumar Ojha, the
Learned counsel for the appellant, contends that
despite the mandate of Section 12 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, the appellant is facing hurdles as
their "conviction" continues to be treated as a
blemish. He prays the conviction to be declared
non-stigmatic to fulfill the Act's legislative intent,
noting that all appellant successfully completed his
probation period with good behaviour.

10. In view of the successful completion
finds no necessity to adjudicate the appeal on
merits. However, addressing the prayer regarding
the stigma of conviction, it is observed that the
object of the Act is rehabilitative rather than
punitive. A court’s decision to grant probation

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.589 of 2005 dt.23-04-2026
7/7
signifies a finding of capacity for reformation. If the
stigma of conviction continues to haunt an
individual’s professional or personal life, the very
purpose of the Act is frustrated.
11. Accordingly, the conviction
recorded against the appellant shall not be treated
as a "disqualification" for any benefits as per the
provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act. It is
further clarified that the trial Court's findings shall
not operate as a stigma on the character of the
appellants, nor shall he hinder his career
prospects.
12. W ith the aforesaid observations/
direction, the appeal stands disposed of.


(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
AMANDEEP/-