IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revisions No. 150 & 291 of 2025 Decided on : 28.07.2025 Cr. Revisions No. 150 & 291 of 2025 Hamir Chand …Petitioner(s) Versus State of H.P. …Respondent(s) Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri and Ms. Meghana Singh, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Both the Criminal Revisions No. 150 and 291 of 2025 are being decided by the common order, as the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the convict’) has preferred these revisions against the judgment dated 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 07.01.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7- G/X/2023/2021 as well as Criminal Appeal No. 64- G/X/2023/2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Court”). 2. Criminal Appeal No. 7-G/X/2023/2021, titled as Hamir Chand Vs State of H.P., has been filed by the convict against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021, and order of sentence dated 04.12.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 3. State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 64-G/X/2023/2022, titled as ‘State of H.P. Vs Hamir Chand’, against the inadequacy of the sentences, passed by learned trial Court. 4. By way of the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021, and order of sentence dated 04.12.2021 the learned trial Court has convicted the convict for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 3 325 and 354 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentenced him as under:- (i) For the offence under Section 341 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. (ii) For the offence under Section 325 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (iii) For the offence under Section 354 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 5. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 6. The learned Appellate Court has decided both the appeals vide common judgment dated 07.01.2025. The appeal preferred by convict Hamir Chand, has been dismissed, whereas, the appeal of the State has been allowed, by enhancing the sentence, as awarded by the learned trial Court, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 354 of IPC. 7. By way of the judgment dated 07.01.2025, the learned Appellate Court has enhanced the sentence 4 inflicted by the learned trial Court, under Section 325 of IPC, by sentencing the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. Similarly, the sentence for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC has also been enhanced by sentencing the convict to undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, convict Hamir Chand is before this Court, by way of the present Criminal Revisions. 9. During the pendency of these revisions, vide order dated 30.05.2015, in Cr. Revision No. 291/2025, this Court has ordered to call for the report of the Probation Officer. 10. Today, convict Hamir Chand, who is present in the Court, has made a statement that he does not press his revision petitions against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, as 5 modified by the learned Appellate Court, and prayed that he may, kindly be released on probation. 11. In sequel thereto, the report of the Probation Officer has been received, who has also recommended that the benefit of probation be given to convict Hamir Chand. 12. The convict has also deposed that he is the sole bread earner of his family, consisting of his widowed mother, wife and three minor daughters. Apart from this, he has also put forward the plea that he is facing agony of the trial since 2013. 13. The provisions of Section 325, 354 and 341 of IPC are reproduced as under:- Section 325 IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. - Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 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 6 may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.] Section 341 IPC: Punishment for wrongful restraint. – Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or which fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 14. The legislature in its wisdom has not provided the punishment for life and death for the offences i.e. Sections 325, 354 & 341 IPC, for which the convict has been convicted and sentenced. He is having the permanent abode in Village & Post Office Kariyara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, 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 convict is facing the agony of the trial from the date of registration of FIR, including the period, for which, the appeal remains pending before the Court. 15. In this case, it has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State that the convict has been convicted and sentenced for the heinous offences under Sections 325, 354 and 341 of IPC 7 and prayed that for such heinous offences, benefit of probation should not be granted to him. 16. Heard. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 8 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. While, not pressing his revision petition, against the judgment of conviction, the convict has categorically stated that he is the first offender and the sole bread 9 earner of his family. Rejecting the prayer of the convict to release him on probation, would amount to punishing his family members, for the offences, committed by the convict. 23. Considering the nature of the offences, this Court is of the view that it would be expedient to release the convict on probation of good conduct, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence, as imposed by the learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. 24. Considering all these facts, the revision petitions of the convict are 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 convict 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 two years and to receive the substantive sentence, as and when, called upon to do so, during the period of two years. 10 25. The convict is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, which shall be in addition to the fine amount, 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. 15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant, as compensation, by the learned trial Court, after issuing notices to her, in this regard. 26. 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 convict is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive sentence. 27. The revision petitions are partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 28, 2025 (Pramod)