After 21 Years, P&H HC Upholds Constable-Assault Conviction But Places First-Offender On One-Year Probation

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court, Narnaul, for offences under Sections 332, 353 and 324 IPC and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment on each count, with fines.

The prosecution case was that, while on official duty with an SDM, Constable Naresh Kumar signalled a vehicle to stop; its driver allegedly accelerated and struck him, causing injuries, before fleeing.

In appeal, the appellant did not press a challenge to the conviction and sought relief only on sentence, relying on the passage of more than 21 years, his status as a first offender, and the absence of subsequent criminal conduct.

The State opposed sentence reduction or probation.

Sections 332, 353 and 324 IPC were the provisions under which the appellant stood convicted.

The Court referred to Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1972) 2 SCC 633, on the rehabilitative purpose of probation legislation and the aim of avoiding the association of suitable offenders with hardened criminals in prison.

It also relied on Chellammal v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, which explained that Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act has wider application than Section 360 CrPC and that a court must consider probation where the statutory conditions apply, recording reasons if it declines to grant it.

The Court ultimately referred to Section 360 CrPC as the basis for granting probation in this case.

The Court affirmed the conviction, observing that the prosecution evidence was consistent and sufficient, notwithstanding that the appellant had confined his appeal to sentence.

On sentence, it considered the long interval since the 2004 incident, the appellant’s prolonged experience of litigation, his first-offender status, the absence of any criminal history or later prosecution, and his age of 43 years.

Applying the probation principles it had discussed, the Court concluded that these circumstances favoured release on probation rather than continued custodial punishment.

It was partly allowed on sentence: the custodial sentences were modified, and the appellant was directed to be released on probation for one year upon furnishing bonds and undertaking to keep the peace and maintain good behaviour. In case of default, he would be liable to receive the sentence when called upon to do so.