Latest News
Back
Document:
Relief under Probation of Offenders Act is not excluded by minimum mandatory period prescribed by IPC: Supreme Court
A petition was filed in the Supreme Court (SC) by the accused who were convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Upon being convicted by the trial court, the petitioners had filed for an appeal, however, the court, staying the trial court’s judgement, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioners have now approached the SC through a special leave petition. It is submitted by the petitioner that they resolved the dispute with the complainant outside court and had arrived at a ‘compromise deed’. They stated that as a result of the compromise, the complainant had no objections to the petitioners’ release on bail or even acquittal. Responding to the petition the respondent relying on the case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das (2019), stated that a sentence cannot be reduced below the minimum mandatory period prescribed by the relevant Act. Hence, it was submitted that, having been convicted under Section 397 of IPC, the petitioners must serve the minimum mandatory imprisonment period, which is 7 years. However, the petitioners sought relief under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (PO) and not under the provisions of IPC.
Noting the submission of the parties, the SC bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, read down the provisions of Section 6 of PO and relied on precedents like Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, wherein it was held that where the offender was under the age of 21 on the date of sentencing, relief could be granted to them in form of probation. However, while considering relief under the section, it is necessary that the court take into account the nature offence committed, the offender’s character and their surrounding circumstances as recorded in probation report. Observing so, the court in the present case stated that the offenders not being 21 years on the date of sentencing, the court stated that the petitioners would not be eligible to claim relief under Section 6 of PO.
Highlighting the provisions of Section 4 which states that where an offence that is not punishable by death or life imprisonment is committed, the offender may notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the court may instead of sentencing the offender, release them on a bond. Hence, the court held that the petitioners, given that they have completed 50% of their minimum mandated imprisonment period and no reports against their conduct were filed during that time and that the complainant has forgiven them for the offence committed against him, they could claim relief under Section 4 of PO.
Document:
