Reformative approach warrants granting probation for Section 325 IPC conviction to facilitate offender rehabilitation.

The applicant was convicted by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Surendranagar, in Criminal Case No. 1447 of 2002 for offenses under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act

On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the applicant of the Gujarat Police Act offense but confirmed the convictions and sentences under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC

The applicant subsequently filed this revision application.

During the proceedings, the Court noted that 24 years had elapsed since the date of the incident and that the applicant had no subsequent criminal record

A report from the Chief Probation Officer, Surendranagar, dated 01.04.2026, recommended extending the benefit of probation due to the applicant’s good conduct

1. Whether the High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the lower courts

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the principles of reformative justice

The Court primarily applied Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which define the discretionary and limited nature of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is reserved for cases involving glaring procedural defects or manifest errors of law

The Court relied on the precedent of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, which establishes that a Revisional Court cannot act as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate evidence

Additionally, the Court invoked Section 360(1) of the CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, focusing on the reformative approach of penology and the rehabilitation of offenders

The Court observed that under its revisional jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the lower court's findings are perverse or demonstrate a miscarriage of justice; finding no such error, the Court upheld the conviction

However, the Court transitioned to a reformative analysis, noting that the objective of penology includes rehabilitation and reformation

It highlighted that 24 years had passed since the incident and the applicant had maintained good conduct during this period

Taking into account the favorable report from the Chief Probation Officer and the fact that the applicant was a first-time offender, the Court determined that a reformative approach was preferable to a harsh custodial sentence in securing societal interest and justice

The Court directed that the applicant be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year, subject to the execution of a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety

The applicant is required to maintain peace and receive the sentence as and when called upon during this one-year period

The revision application was disposed of with a direction to submit the bond before the trial court within 15 days