Convicted offenders may be granted probation to prioritize reformative justice and facilitate rehabilitation.

The applicants were originally tried in Criminal Case No. 96/1997 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Maliyahatina, which resulted in an acquittal.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 8/2012.

On 15.07.2015, the 9th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, overturned the acquittal and convicted the applicants for offences punishable under Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) read with Section 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicants were sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

The applicants subsequently filed the present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, challenging the conviction and sentence.

During the pendency of the revision, the Court called for a report from the Chief Probation Officer.

1. Whether the findings of the lower appellate court suffer from any glaring defect, manifest error of law, or perversity warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of probation under the reformative approach of penology, considering the passage of time and their conduct.

The Court primarily applied the standards for revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, as elucidated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, which limits interference to cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice.

Substantively, the Court applied Section 325 and Section 114 of the IPC regarding the conviction.

For sentencing, the Court relied on Section 360(1) of the CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which permit the release of offenders on probation of good conduct to facilitate rehabilitation and reformation.

The Court observed that its revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and limited; it cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence unless the lower court's findings are perverse.

Finding no such error or perversity in the Sessions Judge’s judgment, the Court upheld the conviction.

The Court noted that 28 years had elapsed since the incident (1997) and the applicants had not engaged in further criminal activity.

The Chief Probation Officer’s report confirmed the applicants' good conduct and recommended probation.

The Court emphasized that penology should favor a reformative approach and rehabilitation over harsh punishment to secure societal interest and justice.

Consequently, while the conviction was sustained, the Court found it fit to exercise its discretion to grant probation.

It directed the applicants to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year.

The release is contingent upon the execution of a probation bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety, to be submitted to the trial court within 15 days.

The applicants are ordered to maintain peace and appear for sentencing if called upon during the one-year probation period.

The revision application was disposed of accordingly.