Supreme Court extends Probation Act benefit in cross-case: Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 46

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to an accused in a cross-case where the other group has already been granted such benefit, given that both cases arise from the same incident and a settlement was reached between the parties.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan

[Judgment Date]: January 09, 2025

Introduction:

Date of the Judgment: January 09, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 46

Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Can a person convicted in a criminal case be granted the benefit of probation if the related cross-case resulted in probation for the other party? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a family dispute that led to two separate criminal proceedings. The core issue revolved around whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be extended to the appellant, Ramesh, given that the other party involved in the cross-case had already received this benefit. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, with the opinion authored by Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

Case Background

The case involves a long-standing family feud that resulted in a violent clash on January 1, 1993, between two groups of the same family. This clash led to two separate FIRs being filed at the Gadhmora Police Station. The first FIR (No. 1/1993) was filed by Chhotu, alleging assault by Ramesh and five others. The second FIR (No. 9/1993) was a counter-complaint filed by Ramesh and his group against Chhotu and his family members. These two FIRs resulted in two separate criminal trials.

The trial stemming from FIR No. 1/1993 (Session Case No. 31/93) concluded with the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, convicting Ramesh and others. The trial stemming from FIR No. 9/1993 (Criminal Case No. 584/1998) concluded with the Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, convicting the accused but releasing them on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, after a settlement was reached between the parties.

Ramesh, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The High Court partly allowed his appeal, setting aside his conviction under Sections 307, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but upholding his conviction under Sections 326, 325, 452, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, Ramesh appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, convicted Ramesh under Sections 148, 307/149, 326, 323/149, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Session Case No. 31/93. Ramesh and other accused then appealed to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 562/1995. The High Court partly allowed Ramesh’s appeal, setting aside his conviction under Sections 307, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but affirming his conviction under Sections 326, 325, 452, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court also modified the sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Court. The High Court declined to grant the benefit of the Probation Act, citing the nature of the injuries and the sentencing provisions under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Ramesh then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that since the cross-case had resulted in probation for the other party, he should also receive the same benefit. The Supreme Court considered the fact that the two cases arose from the same incident and that a settlement had been reached between the parties in the cross-case.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Specifically, Section 4 of the Probation Act allows a court to release certain offenders on probation instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Section 11 of the Probation Act empowers the Supreme Court to exercise the powers conferred on a court under the Act. The Supreme Court also invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under which Ramesh was convicted include:

• Section 326: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 325: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 452: House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.
• Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles laid down in previous cases such as Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC 688 and Nathi Lal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 1990 Supp. SCC 145, which emphasized that cross-cases should ideally be tried by the same judge or court for better appreciation of evidence and consistency in decisions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the two criminal proceedings, Session Case No. 31/93 and Criminal Case No. 584/1998, arose from the same incident of a clash between two groups of the same family on the same day.
• The appellant contended that the dispute was amicably settled during the pendency of Criminal Case No. 584/1998, and the accused in that case were released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
• The appellant pleaded that the same benefit should be extended to him, given the settlement and the fact that the cross-case resulted in probation for the other party.
• The appellant pointed out that he had already undergone more than four months of the six-month simple imprisonment imposed by the High Court.
• The appellant emphasized that he is about 70 years old and has no prior criminal record.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the High Court’s judgment did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality that would warrant interference from the Supreme Court.
• The State contended that the High Court had correctly considered the nature of the injuries and the sentencing provisions under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in declining to grant probation.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be extended to the appellant, given that the other party in the cross-case had already been granted probation, and the cases arose from the same incident and a settlement was reached between the parties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC 688 – The Supreme Court referred to this case to emphasize that cross-cases should ideally be tried by the same judge or court for better appreciation of evidence and consistency in decisions.
• Nathi Lal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 1990 Supp. SCC 145 – This case was also cited to support the principle that cross-cases should be tried together for consistency.

Statutes:

• The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
  • Section 4: Provides for the power of the court to release certain offenders on probation.
  • Section 11: Empowers the Supreme Court to exercise the powers conferred on a court under the Act.
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860:
  • Section 326: Deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
  • Section 325: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
  • Section 452: Deals with house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.
  • Section 323: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC 688 and Nathi Lal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 1990 Supp. SCC 145, emphasizing the need for consistency in the handling of cross-cases.
• The Court invoked Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to justify releasing the appellant on probation.
• The Court invoked Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to exercise its power to grant probation.
• The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice by extending the benefit of probation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to extend the benefit of the Probation Act to the appellant, Ramesh, was influenced by several factors. The Court emphasized the following:

• Cross-Cases: The Court recognized that the two criminal cases were cross-cases arising from the same incident, involving the same family, and occurring on the same day. This interconnectedness was a crucial factor in the Court’s decision.
• Settlement: The fact that the disputing parties had reached a settlement during the trial of the cross-case and the accused in that case were released on probation was a significant consideration.
• Consistency: The Court noted that the other group involved in the cross-case had been granted the benefit of probation, and therefore, the same benefit should be extended to the present appellant to ensure consistency and fairness.
• Age and Conduct: The Court took into account that the appellant was about 70 years old, had no prior criminal record, and had already undergone a substantial portion of his sentence.
• Justice: The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice, finding that the circumstances warranted the extension of probation.
• Nature of Offences: The Court noted that the appellant was acquitted of more serious charges under Sections 307, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was convicted only under Sections 326, 325, 452, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the High Court’s decision but disagreed, finding that the unique circumstances of the case warranted the extension of probation. The Court emphasized that the two cases were cross-cases arising from the same incident, and that a settlement had been reached between the parties. The Court also noted that the other group involved in the cross-case had been granted the benefit of probation, and therefore, the same benefit should be extended to the present appellant to ensure consistency and fairness.

The Court considered the arguments that the nature of the injuries and sentencing provisions under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, would not allow for probation but held that the unique facts and circumstances of the case justified the extension of the benefit of probation. The Court also noted that the appellant was elderly, had no prior criminal record, and had already served a substantial portion of his sentence.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the outcome and the reasoning.

The Supreme Court’s decision sets a precedent for similar cases involving cross-cases and settlements, indicating that the benefit of probation can be extended to all parties involved in such cases, provided that the other conditions are met. This decision ensures consistency and fairness in the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforced the importance of consistency and fairness in the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, particularly in cases involving cross-complaints and settlements. The Court emphasized the need to consider the unique facts and circumstances of each case while applying the law.

“Having gone through the records, we are satisfied that the two criminal cases were in reality cross cases filed by two groups of the family because of certain family disputes and the genesis of both the criminal cases can be traced to the clash between the two conflicting groups which occurred on the same day on 01.01.1993 in the morning…”

“Under the circumstances, we are inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant the benefit of the Probation Act to the present appellant also, which had been granted to the other accused belonging to the other conflicting group in the cross case, considering the fact that a settlement was reached between the parties…”

“Accordingly, we allow the appeal by directing the release of the appellant by extending the benefit of Section 4 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India…”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to an appellant in a cross-case where the other party had already received such benefit.
• The Court emphasized the importance of consistency and fairness in the application of the Probation Act, particularly in cases involving cross-complaints and settlements.
• The Court considered the unique facts and circumstances of the case, including the settlement between the parties, the appellant’s age, and his lack of prior criminal record.
• The decision reinforces the principle that cross-cases should ideally be tried together or treated consistently to ensure justice.
• The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice by extending the probation benefits.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the release of the appellant, Ramesh, by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and directed him to execute a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with a surety of a like amount for a period of six months. The appellant was also directed to maintain peace and good conduct and to not repeat the crime. Additionally, the Court imposed an amount of Rs. 100 towards prosecution expenses.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving cross-complaints arising from the same incident, where a settlement has been reached and one party has been granted the benefit of probation, the same benefit should ideally be extended to the other party as well, provided the other conditions are met. This decision reinforces the principle of consistency and fairness in the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and does not change the previous position of law but rather clarifies its application in such situations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan is a significant ruling that reinforces the importance of consistency and fairness in the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. By extending the benefit of probation to the appellant, the Court ensured that both parties involved in the cross-cases were treated equitably, given that a settlement had been reached and the other party had already been granted probation. This decision highlights the Court’s commitment to doing complete justice and considering the unique facts and circumstances of each case. The Court’s invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution of India underscores its willingness to go beyond the strict letter of the law to ensure that justice is served.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Child Category: Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?

A: The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is a law that allows courts to release certain offenders on probation instead of sending them to jail. This means that instead of imprisonment, the offender is supervised and given a chance to reform.

Q: What is a cross-case in legal terms?

A: A cross-case refers to two or more legal cases that arise from the same incident, where each party involved files a complaint against the other. These cases are usually interconnected and involve the same set of facts.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court decided that if one party in a cross-case is released on probation, the other party should also be given the benefit of probation, provided they meet the necessary conditions. This decision ensures consistency and fairness.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court extend the benefit of the Probation Act to Ramesh?

A: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of the Probation Act to Ramesh because the two criminal cases were cross-cases arising from the same incident, a settlement had been reached between the parties, and the other party had already been granted probation. The Court also considered Ramesh’s age, lack of prior criminal record, and the fact that he had already served a substantial portion of his sentence.

Q: What is Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

A: Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The Court invoked this article to ensure that Ramesh received the benefit of probation.

Q: What should I do if I am involved in a similar situation?

A: If you are involved in a situation where you are facing a criminal case and there is a related cross-case, you should consult with a lawyer to discuss your options. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of considering settlements and seeking consistent treatment in cross-cases.