The Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting probation to two men convicted in a 2003 attack that left a victim with severe and lasting injuries. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence and the accused persons’ criminal antecedents had not been properly considered before extending the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
A Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed both men to surrender within two weeks and ordered that their appeals before the Allahabad High Court be heard only after they are taken into custody.
Background
The case arose from an incident in 2003 involving a dispute between neighbouring shopkeepers. According to the prosecution’s account, two men attacked the victim using a cutting weapon and a firearm. The victim sustained cut injuries and gunshot wounds and continues to suffer serious physical consequences.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich, convicted the accused under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with an act committed with the intention or knowledge that it may amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹20,000 each.
The Allahabad High Court upheld their convictions but granted them probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It relied on the passage of approximately 22 years since the incident and the absence of previous convictions cited in support of their plea.
The victim’s brother, who was the first informant, challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court questioned the decision to release the accused on probation despite the severity of the injuries and material concerning their criminal antecedents. The Bench obtained a Probation Officer’s report, which listed multiple criminal cases involving both men, including cases pending trial.
The report also documented the victim’s continuing physical difficulties, including a disabled right hand, persistent pain and difficulty walking. His medical treatment was still continuing in Lucknow.
The Court observed:
“The circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender should be the reigning factor in deciding as to whether it is expedient to release the accused on the premise of good conduct; which in the facts of this case is lacking.”
The Bench further questioned the High Court’s reliance on the lengthy passage of time, noting that the accused had remained on bail and had not spent even a single day in prison.
It stated:
“True, protracted trial is agonizing but here, the accused were on bail and merrily indulging in criminal activities. The victim, on the other hand, in the ensuing years was, day-in and day-out suffering the debilitating effects of the attack.”
The Court also highlighted Section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, which requires the court to consider the Probation Officer’s report, if available, before passing an order under the provision.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order granting probation. It directed the two accused to surrender within two weeks of the order, failing which the Additional Sessions Court, Bahraich, must initiate immediate proceedings to apprehend them.
The Court restored the criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow and requested that they be taken up only after the accused had been taken into custody.
