1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 270 of 2010 Decided on : 11.7.2025 Hans Raj …Appellant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Appellant in person with Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent : Surety in person with Mr. Sunil Gautam, Advocate in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1133 of 2025. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ 2 Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1133 and 1134 of 2025 Reply(ies) to the show cause notices filed. Be taken on record. 2. The explanation, given in the reply(ies) to the show cause notices, is accepted and show cause notices, issued to the appellant and his surety, are ordered to be discharged. 3. The applications are, thus, disposed of. Cr. Appeal No. 270 of 2010 4. Appellant has filed the present appeal, against the judgment, dated 24.7.2010/27.7.2010, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court), in Sessions case No. 2-G/VII- 2009, titled as ‘State versus Hans Raj’. 3 5. By virtue of judgment dated 24.7.2010/27.7.2010 and order of sentence, dated 27.7.2010, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced him in the following manner: Sections Sentence imposed In default S. 325 IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000.- Simple imprisonment for six months. 6. The instant appeal has been admitted for hearing by this Court, vide order, dated 20.8.2010. 7. Vide order, dated 3.3.2025, this Court has ordered to call for the report of the Probation Officer. In sequel thereto, the report of the Probation Officer has been received. 8. Today, statement of the appellant has been recorded on oath, in which, he has stated that he does not want to press the present appeal, preferred against 4 the judgment dated 24.7.2010/27.7.2010, and prayed that he may be released on probation. 9. The report of the Probation Officer perused. The Probation Officer has specifically mentioned that the conduct of the appellant-convict, during past years, in the society, is good and has recommended that the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act be given to him. 10. The offence, for which, the appellant has been convicted, is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The convict is having the permanent abode in District Kangra, H.P. There is nothing on the file to demonstrate that after the incident, upon which, the FIR was registered against the appellant-convict, any other incident, had taken place. No subsequent offence is reported to have been committed by him. 5 11. The appellant has already faced the agony of the trial, including the pendency of the present appeal, for the last about seventeen years. 12. Our Criminal Jurisprudence System is reformatory in nature. With the passage of time, it has been realized that sending the first offender to jail, to undergo substantive sentence, does not produce good results, as, the first offender/convict, sometimes, may come in contact with the hardened criminals. 13. The probation is a kind of non-custodial sentence, by giving an opportunity to the convict to reform himself, while abiding by certain conditions, imposed by the Court, for a certain period. It is a reformatory measure to achieve the object, by giving an opportunity to the convict, to reform himself, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence. 14. While, not pressing his appeal, against the judgment of conviction, the appellant, has prayed that 6 he be released on probation. Rejecting the prayer of the appellant to release him on probation, would amount to punishing his family members, for the offence, committed by the convict. 15. Considering the nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that it would be expedient to release the appellant on probation of good conduct, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence, as imposed by the learned trial Court. 16. Considering all these facts, the appeal is dismissed against the judgment of conviction, however, in view of the discussions made above, the order of sentence is ordered to be modified. Instead of directing the appellant to undergo the substantive sentence, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety, of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, to keep peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of 7 two years and to receive the substantive sentence, as and when, called upon to do so, during the period of two years. 17. The appellant is also directed to deposit a sum of 3 ₹ ,000/-, which shall be in addition to the fine amount, if any, already deposited by him, in this case, with the learned trial Court, within a period of one month from today. The said amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to the injured, as compensation, by the learned trial Court, after issuing notice to him, in this regard. 18. It is clarified that in case of violation of any of the conditions, so imposed, including the terms and conditions of the requisite bonds, the order of sentence shall revive automatically, without reference to this Court. In that eventuality, the appellant is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive sentence. 8 19. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge July 11, 2025 Kalpana