Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:2032 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 46 of 2014 Decided on: 06.01.2026 _________________________________________________________ Dhyam Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners-accused persons (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused persons’) under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 07.03.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, HP, in Criminal Appeal No.2-R/10 of 2009, whereby the appeal filed by the accused persons against the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2009 and order of sentence dated 07.07.2009, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, HP, in Case 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41357 ) No.209/2 of 2008/07, was partly allowed and the conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 332, 353 and 506, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was affirmed, however, while maintaining the sentence of fine, the substantive sentence, passed by the learned Trial Court, was reduced for one month. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 13.06.2007 at about 6:00 PM, when complainant Devinder Singh reached nearby the house of one Nihal Chand to discharge his duty of supplying regular water supply from the main water source Kandigarh to water tank, accused Vikram @ Rinku alongwith his co-accused Dhyan Singh came at the spot in the vehicle and accused Dhyan Singh tried to open the controller with a plier being carried by him. On this, the complainant asked the accused persons not to do so, but they got infuriated and hit the plier on his right arm. Accused Vikram @ Rinku had also taken out an iron rod from the vehicle and inflicted a blow on the head of the complainant and thereafter both the accused persons started beating him with fist and kick blows. On hearing hue and cries, other accused persons, Leela Singh, Raj Kumar, Bahadur Singh and Kalam Singh also reached at the spot and except accused Kalam Singh, all the accused persons were 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41357 ) having dandas on their hands and they had given beatings to the complainant. Subsequently, Smt.Jovan, wife of accused Dhyan Singh, Madan Sain and Sher Singh, who used to run their hotel and karyana shop, came to the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused persons. The accused persons had also given threatening to the complainant to do away with his life and thereafter they left the spot. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused persons. 3. The police, during the course of investigation, prepared the spot map, recorded statements of the witnesses and also took into possession the torn clothes of the complainant as well as the incriminating articles such as, dandas, iron rod and plier. The complainant was got medically examined at CHC, Chirgaon and his MLC was obtained. After completion of the investigation, the police prepared the charge-sheet and presented the same in the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court, after having found the accused persons guilty, convicted them for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 332, 353, 506, read with Section 149 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2009 and sentenced them 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41357 ) to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 332, read with Section 149 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 353, read with Section 149 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences punishable under Section 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-, amount of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation on its realization. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused persons preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, which was partly allowed/modified, vide the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2014. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2014, the petitioners-accused persons preferred the instant revision petition. It is relevant to note here that during pendency of the present revision petition, accused Bahadur Singh had died and proceedings against him were abated, vide order dated 21.08.2025. 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41357 ) 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-accused persons as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also gone through the entire record carefully. 8. At the very outset, it may be pertinent to mention that learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are satisfied with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, but alternatively submitted that since the petitioners are the first offenders and there is no previous conviction against them, therefore, they be released on probation. He further submitted that the petitioners are facing the proceedings in the present case since the year 2007 and now they are having good reputation in the society. 9. 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 persons. Regarding the prayer of taking a lenient view and to consider release of the petitioners on probation, this Court has also called for the report from the Probation Officer and while submitting the report, the Probation Officer had recommended that benefit of probation may be given to the petitioners favourably keeping in view their past good character and behavior, as reported by the neighbors and Gram Panchayat. In other words, since the year 2007, 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41357 ) the petitioners were 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.” 10. 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 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." 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41357 ) 11. 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. 12. 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 persons/petitioners as well while upholding their conviction. The offences for which accused persons have been convicted can not be said to be heinous in nature. Resultantly, while upholding the conviction of the accused persons under Sections 148, 332, 353, 506, read with Section 149 of IPC, taking into account that they are the first offenders and facing the agony of trial since the year 2007, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them by the learned Trial Court and modified by the learned Appellate Court, is set-aside. Accordingly, the petitioners/accused persons are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for keeping peace and good behavior for a period of two years. 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:41357 ) The necessary bonds be furnished within a period of six weeks from today. 13. However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioners commit breach of any of the terms and conditions of the bond, they shall be called upon by the learned Trial Court to serve the awarded sentence. 13. 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 January 06, 2026 (V.Himalvi)