1 2025:HHC:38123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. : 4127 of 2013 Decided on : 12th November, 2025 Sandeep Pal & Others ....Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have filed the present Criminal Revision, against the judgment, dated 04.07.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as 2 2025:HHC:38123 ‘the Appellate Court), in Criminal Appeal No. 32-S/10 of 2011, titled as ‘Sandeep Pal & Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh.’ 2. Vide judgment, dated 04.07.2013, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as ‘the convicts’), against the judgment of conviction, dated 10.08.2011 and order of sentence, dated 18.08.2011, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Criminal Case No.1/2 of 2009, titled as, ‘State versus Sandeep Pal & Others’. 3. By virtue of judgment of conviction, dated 10.08.2011 and order of sentence, dated 18.08.2011, the learned trial Court has convicted the convicts, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 341 and 324, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 3 2025:HHC:38123 Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced them, as under: Sections Sentence imposed Section 341 IPC read with Section 34 IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 4. Vide order, dated 03.09.2025, 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. After perusing the report of the Probation Officer, on 29.10.2025, two cases were found to be registered against the petitioners/convicts and learned counsel for the petitioners/convicts sought time to verify the said fact. 5. In pursuance of the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners/convicts has filed Cr.MP No.4958 of 2025, for placing on record the copy of the judgment of acquittal, dated 23.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial 4 2025:HHC:38123 Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, in a case, arising out of FIR No.48 of 2014, dated 19.05.2014, registered with Police Station, Barotiwala, District Solan, the certificate issued by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Barotiwala, depicting therein, the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and, the photocopy of Saja Slip, regarding FIR No.84/2018, dated 08.08.2018, under Sections 341, 323, and 34 of the IPC. As per column No.6, matter has been compromised between the parties and case has been filed. The said application has been allowed and the documents annexed have been ordered to be taken on record. 6. Today, statements of the convicts have been recorded on oath, in which, they have stated that they do not want to press the present petition, preferred against the judgment of conviction. They have also deposed in corroboration of the documents, 5 2025:HHC:38123 annexed with application, bearing Cr.MP No 4958 of 2025, which are ordered to be taken on record. 7. The report of the Probation Officer perused. The Probation Officer has recommended that the convicts may be given an opportunity to reform and has also recommended that the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act be given to them. 8. The offences, for which, the convicts have been convicted, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The convicts are having the permanent abode in District Solan, H.P. 9. The convicts have already faced the agony of the trial, including the pendency of the Criminal Revision, for the last about sixteen years. 10. 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 6 2025:HHC:38123 results, as, the first offenders/convicts, sometimes, may come in contact with the hardened criminals. 11. The probation is a kind of non-custodial sentence, by giving an opportunity to the convicts to reform themselves, 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 convicts, to reform themselves, instead of directing them to undergo substantive sentence. 12. While, not pressing their Criminal Revision, against the judgment of conviction, the convicts, have prayed that they be released on probation. Rejecting the prayer of the convicts to release them on probation, would amount to punishing their family members, for the offences, committed by the convicts. 13. Considering the nature of the offences, this Court is of the view that it would be expedient to 7 2025:HHC:38123 release the convicts on probation of good conduct, instead of directing them to undergo substantive sentence, as imposed by the learned trial Court. 14. Considering all these facts, the Criminal Revision Petition of the convicts, 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 convicts to undergo the substantive sentence, they are directed to be released on probation of good conduct, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, each with one surety, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, to keep peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of two years and to receive the substantive sentence, as and when, called upon to do so, during the period of two years. 15. The convicts are also directed to deposit a sum of 5 ₹ ,000/-, each, which shall be in addition to the 8 2025:HHC:38123 fine amount, if any, already deposited by them, in this case, with the learned trial Court, within a period of one month from today. The said amount of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant, as compensation, by the learned trial Court, after issuing notice to him, in this regard. 16. 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 convicts are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive sentence. 17. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge November 12, 2025 (ps)