The Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla has ordered the release of Ram Krishan, convicted in a 2009 rash driving case, on probation of good conduct for two years. Justice Virender Singh passed the judgment on October 27, 2025, modifying the sentence earlier imposed by the Mandi trial court.
Background
Ram Krishan had been convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rash and negligent driving, which had caused injuries to two individuals. The trial court had sentenced him to simple and rigorous imprisonment for periods ranging from three to six months, along with fines.
His appeal before the Sessions Judge, Mandi, was dismissed in 2013, prompting him to file a criminal revision before the High Court. During the hearing, Krishan requested leniency, citing that he was a first-time offender and the sole breadwinner of his family.
Court's Observations
Justice Virender Singh examined the record, including the Probation Officer's report, which described the petitioner's conduct as 'good' over the years. The report also mentioned that while three earlier FIRs had been registered against him, all had either resulted in acquittals or compromises.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Court underlined that the question of granting probation depends on the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The judge quoted the apex court's caution in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, noting that rash driving cases usually require deterrence. Yet, he clarified that each case must be judged individually.
"The court must consider whether releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct is expedient to achieve the ends of justice," Justice Singh remarked while reading out the order.
The Court also cited Paul George vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2008), where the Supreme Court had released a person convicted under similar sections on probation, given the long passage of time and the convict’s otherwise clean record.
Decision
After considering the Probation Officer’s findings and the twenty-year delay in final disposal, the Court found it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to Ram Krishan.
"Rejecting the prayer for probation would amount to punishing his family for the offence committed by him," the judge observed, adding that imprisonment in such cases often does more harm than good.
Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the High Court modified the sentence. The Court directed Ram Krishan to be released on probation for two years, upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety of the same amount, promising good behavior and peace during the period.
Additionally, the Court ordered him to deposit ₹5,000 as compensation to the injured persons, Ravi Saini and Hitesh Saini, within one month. The trial court was instructed to disburse the amount after notifying the victims.
In a firm warning, the judge added, "In case of violation of any condition, the sentence shall revive automatically, and the convict shall surrender to serve his sentence."
The revision petition was thus partly allowed, marking closure to a case that had lingered for nearly two decades.
Case Title:- Ram Krishan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Type & Number: Criminal Revision No. 4032 of 2013
