Supreme Court Grants Probation in Theft Case: Som Dutt & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 04 April 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can individuals convicted of theft be released on probation, even after their conviction has been upheld by multiple courts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in Som Dutt & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. The core issue was whether the appellants, convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for theft, should be given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the opinion authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

On September 18, 2008, a police patrol team was stationed at Dungru Nallah. A red Indigo car without a number plate approached from Phegal road. The police stopped the car, which was driven by Manoj Kumar alias Manoj Kaushal, with Bula Ram as a passenger. They stated they were heading to Sundernagar to remold tractor tires, which were being transported behind them. A tractor trolley driven by Daleep Kumar, with Som Dutt and Ranjan Kumar as passengers, arrived shortly after. Som Dutt claimed ownership of the tractor, stating that Bula Ram had the documents. However, upon inspection, the registration numbers of the tractor and trolley did not match. Consequently, an FIR was filed against all five individuals under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, convicted the appellants under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on 20 January 2012, sentencing them to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000, with an additional month of simple imprisonment for non-payment. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, upheld this conviction on 8 June 2012. Subsequently, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the appellants’ revision petition on 6 August 2021. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the offense of theft, and the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allow for the release of offenders on probation.

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empower courts to release offenders on probation for good conduct under certain conditions. Similarly, Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, also allow for the release of offenders on probation.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the lower courts should have considered releasing them on probation under Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. They emphasized that they had no prior criminal record. The respondent-State, while filing a reply, did not strongly oppose the appellants’ request for probation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellants should be released on probation of good conduct, considering the nature of the offense, the sentence imposed, and their lack of prior criminal records.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empower courts to release offenders on probation under certain conditions.

Judgment

The Court considered Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and decided to release the appellants on probation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellants were first-time offenders with no prior criminal record. The Court also took into account the fact that the State did not strongly oppose the grant of probation. The Court emphasized the rehabilitative aspect of the law and decided to give the appellants an opportunity to reform by releasing them on probation.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the absence of prior criminal records of the appellants, the lack of strong opposition from the State, and the rehabilitative aspect of the law. The court decided to release the appellants on probation, directing each of them to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with a surety of the like amount, and to undertake to keep the peace and good behavior for a period of three years. The court also directed that if the appellants failed to comply with the directions or commit breach of the undertaking, they would be called upon to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The Court stated:
“having regard to the sentence imposed by the courts below on the appellants for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, and having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct.”

The Court further directed:
“the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct, on each of the appellants furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 /- with surety of the like amount , and on further furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of three years , to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.”

The Court also clarified:
“if the appellants failed to comply with the said directions or commit breach of the undertaking given by them, they shall be called upon to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Individuals convicted of theft, especially first-time offenders, may be eligible for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
• ✓ Courts are inclined to consider the rehabilitative aspect of the law, especially when there are no prior criminal records.
• ✓ The lack of strong opposition from the State can be a factor in granting probation.
• ✓ Probation is granted with the condition that the offenders maintain good behavior and comply with the court’s directions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released on probation of good conduct, each furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with a surety of the like amount, and undertaking to keep the peace and good behavior for a period of three years. The Court also directed that if the appellants failed to comply with the directions or commit breach of the undertaking, they would be called upon to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that first-time offenders convicted of theft may be released on probation, especially when there is no prior criminal record and the State does not strongly oppose it. This decision reinforces the rehabilitative aspect of the law and provides an opportunity for offenders to reform.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and released the appellants on probation, emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation and the lack of prior criminal records. The decision highlights the court’s willingness to consider probation for first-time offenders, provided they comply with the conditions set by the court.