1 2025:HHC:29478 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. :   306 of 2011 Decided on :    30.08.2025 Vinod Kumar & Anr. …Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Petitioners in person with Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate   General,   and   Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral) Appellants have preferred the present appeal, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated   29.07.2011,   passed   by   the   Court   of   learned Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Una,   District   Una,   H.P. (hereinafter   referred   to   as  the   ‘trial   Court’),   in  Sessions 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:29478 Case No. 01 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. Vs   Vinod Kumar & Anr. 2. The   learned   trial   Court,   vide   judgment   of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections   354/34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and sentenced them as under: (i) For the offences punishable under Sections 354/34 IPC, the convicts have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of   six   months   each   and   to   pay   fine   of   ₹ 10,000/­ each. In default of payment of fine, the convicts have been   directed   to   further   undergo   simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 3. Today,   the   appellants­convicts,   vide   their separate statements, have stated that they do not want to press   the   present   appeal,   against   the   judgment   of conviction   and   order   of   sentence,   dated  29.07.2011, however,   they   have   prayed   that   they   may   kindly   be released on probation, by modifying the order of sentence dated 29.07.2011, passed by the learned trial Court. They have also deposed that they are the sole bread earner of their families. 3 2025:HHC:29478 4. The   judgment   of   conviction   and   the   order   of sentence, dated 29.07.2011, passed by the learned trial Court, perused. 5. The provisions of Section 354 of IPC are reproduced as under:­ Section 354 IPC: Assault or criminal force to   woman   with   intent   to   outrage   her modesty. – Whoever assaults or uses criminal force   to   any   woman,   intending   to   outrage   or knowing   it   to   be   likely   that   he   will   thereby outrage   her   modesty,   shall   be   punished   with imprisonment   of   either   description   for   a   term which [shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.] 6. The legislature in its wisdom has not provided the   punishment   for   life   and   death   for   the   offence   i.e. Section 354 IPC, for which the appellants­convicts have been   convicted   and   sentenced. They   are   having   the permanent abode in Village Saghnai, Police Station Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. and there is nothing on the file   to   demonstrate   that   after   the   incident,   any   other incident had taken place between the parties. The convicts are   facing   the   agony   of   the   trial   from   the   date   of 4 2025:HHC:29478 registration   of  FIR,  including   the  period,  for   which,  the appeal remained pending before the Court. 7. In this case, it has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State that the appellants­convicts have been convicted and sentenced for   the   heinous   offence   under   Section   354   of   IPC   and prayed that for such heinous offences, benefit of probation should not be granted to him. 8. Heard. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General, could not point out the specific bar created for not granting the probation   to   a   person,   who   has   been   convicted   under Section 354 IPC, as admittedly, he has been convicted of offences, for which, sentence of life and death has not been provided. 10. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as “Kanwar Pal Singh Gill Vs State, 1998 SCC OnLine P&H 1008”, has modified the order of sentence passed   by   the   Court   of   Sessions   Judge   Chandigarh, granting the benefit of probation to the petitioner before it. 5 2025:HHC:29478 11. Against   the   said   judgment   passed   by   the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, accused, as well as, complainant filed the criminal appeals before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which were decided vide judgment dated July 27, 2005, reported in “Kanwar Pal Singh Vs State & anr. (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 161” along with Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1999, titled as “Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill”, whereby, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while deciding the appeals has ordered that the amount of compensation,   so   awarded,   be   given   to   any   women’s organization,   engaged   in   doing   service   for   the   cause   of women. 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   non­custodial sentence, by giving an opportunity to the convict to reform himself, while abiding by certain conditions, imposed by 6 2025:HHC:29478 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   their   Criminal   Appeal, against   the   judgment   of   conviction,   the   convicts   have categorically stated that they are the first offender and the sole bread earner of their families. Rejecting the prayer of the convicts to release them on probation, would amount to   punishing   their   families   members,   for   the   offences, committed by the convicts. 15. Considering   the   nature   of   the   offences,   this Court is of the view that it would be expedient to release the   convicts   on   probation   of   good   conduct,   instead   of directing   them   to   undergo   substantive   sentence,   as imposed by the learned trial Court. 16. Considering all these facts, the Criminal Appeal 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 7 2025:HHC:29478 sentence, they are directed to be released on probation of good conduct, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/­ 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. 17. The convicts are also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ each, which shall be in addition to the fine amount, 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. 20,000/­ shall be paid to the   complainant,   as   compensation,   by   the   learned   trial Court, after issuing notices to her, 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 convicts are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive sentence. 8 2025:HHC:29478 19. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, in the aforesaid   terms. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if any, are also disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 30th August, 2025 (Pramod)