Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43029 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 4144 of 2013 Decided on: 09.12.2025 _________________________________________________________ Battan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocates General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) under Sections 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 01.07.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions- III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.17-K/08/10, whereby the appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2008 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class-II, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Case No.45-II/2005, were 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43029 ) upheld and the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 29.11.2004, complainant Rakesh Kumar alongwith Mohar Singh was going on the scooter bearing registration No.HP-40- 3778 from Kangra to Sohara and when they reached at place Abdullapur, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HP-02-8811 came from opposite side, which was being driven by accused Battan Kumar in a rash and negligent manner, hit the same with the scooter being driven by the complainant. As a result of which, Mohar Singh received simple as well as grievous injuries and he was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused. After completion of the investigation, the police prepared the charge-sheet and presented the same in the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court, after having found the accused guilty, convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2008 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for commission of each of the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 & 338 of IPC, vide order of sentence dated 27.02.2008. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43029 ) and order of sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 01.07.2013. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2013, the petitioner-accused preferred the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner- accused as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also gone through the entire record carefully. 6. At the very outset, it may be pertinent to mention that learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is satisfied with the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, but alternatively submitted that since the petitioner is the first offender and there is no previous conviction against him, therefore, he be released on probation. He further submitted that the petitioner is facing the proceedings in the present case since the year 2004 and now he is having good moral character and maintains respectable conduct in the society. 7. After going through the entire record, I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings given by learned Trial Court convicting the accused. Regarding the prayer of taking a lenient view and to consider release of the petitioner on probation, this Court has also called for the report from the Probation Officer and while submitting 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43029 ) the report, the Probation Officer had recommended that benefit of probation may be given to the petitioner favourably keeping in view his past good character and behavior, as reported by the concerned Gram Panchayat. In other words, since the year 2004, the petitioner was never found indulged in any other similar activity. In Mohammad Giasuddin vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “5. If every saint has a past, every sinner has a future, and it is the role of law to remind both of this. The Indian legal genius of old has made a healthy contribution to the word treasury of criminology. The drawback of our criminal process is that often they are built on the bricks of impressionist opinions and dated values. Ignoring empirical studies and deeper researches.” … ... … … … … … 9.......... The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an ‘in terrorem’ outlook,should prevail in our criminal courts. Since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind.” 8. In Satish @ Sabbe vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 811], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that first-time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look-forward to a bright future. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has aright to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free-roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace-loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilized society cannot be achieved only 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43029 ) through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first-time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look-forward to a bright future." 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar,(2011) 4 SCC 644, has observed that the modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the evidence as well as other material on record, particularly the report of the Probation Officer, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case wherein, benefit of probation can be extended to the accused/petitioner as well while upholding his conviction. The offences for which accused has been convicted neither involve any moral turpitude nor the same can be said to be heinous in nature. Resultantly, while upholding the conviction of the accused Battan Singh under Sections 279, 337 & 338, IPC, taking into account that he is the first offender and facing the agony of trial since the year 2004, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court is set- aside. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43029 ) Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for keeping peace and good behavior for a period of two years. The necessary bonds be furnished within a period of six weeks from today. 11. However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of the bond, he shall be called upon by the learned Trial Court to serve the awarded sentence. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge December 09, 2025 (V.Himalvi)