( 2026:HHC:381 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2016 Decided on: 01.01.2026 ________________________________________________ Vijender Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the respondent/State: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant revision petition has been maintained by the petitioner/accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr. P.C.), against the judgment dated 08.02.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., whereby, judgment of conviction, dated 30.09.2013 and order of sentence, dated 01.10.2013, passed by learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 1 ( 2026:HHC:381 ) Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., was upheld. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that on 12.09.2009, around 05:00 P.M., Taro Devi (complainant) came to Police Station Sadar-Hamirpur and submitted a written complaint, wherein, it has been alleged that on 08.09.2009, an amount of Rs. 13,000/-, belonging to her was stolen by the accused. She further alleged that on 01.09.2009 she had received an amount of Rs. 6,883/- as salary and Rs. 9,500/- as GPF refund and she had Rs. 16,383/- in total, out of which, she took out a sum of Rs. 3,388/- for daily expenses and remaining amount of Rs. 13,000/- was kept by her in her purse. She also alleged that on 07.09.2009 at about 07:30 P.M., accused came to her house and asked about her landlord and while she was keeping the money and other goods in briefcase, the accused was watching her. On the next day, i.e. 08.09.2009, while she was on duty and landlord was also not at home, accused came there, opened the lock and had stolen Rs. 13,000/- and thereafter, he put her purse back in briefcase 2 ( 2026:HHC:381 ) and locked the premises. Subsequently, she asked the accused to return the money and compromise the matter, however, he refused to return money and threatened her. Consequently, FIR under Sections 454 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) came to be registered against the accused. After completion of all the codal formalities, challan was presented in the learned trial Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution case and pleaded not guity. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court, after conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and under Section 454 of IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 3 ( 2026:HHC:381 ) 5. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2016. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and examined the entire records. 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 2009 and now he is having good moral character and maintains respectable conduct in the society. 8. After going through the entire record, I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings given by both the learned Courts below convicting the accused. Regarding the prayer of taking a lenient view and to consider release of the 4 ( 2026:HHC:381 ) petitioner 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 petitioner favourably keeping in view his past good character and conduct and the fact that he is the only bread earner in his family and has two school going children to be taken care of, as also reported by the office of Gram Panchayat, Neri, District Hamirpur and statements of PRI’s, neighbors and relative. In other words, since the year 2009, 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 5 ( 2026:HHC:381 ) courts. Since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind.” 9. In Keshav Sitaram Sali Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 291, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case of petty theft, the High Court should have extended the benefit of probation to the appellant instead of imposing a sentence of fine on him. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “2. Having regard to the special circumstances of this case and the character and antecedents of the appellant we are of the view that this was an eminently fit case in which the High Court should have extended the benefit of either Section 360 of the Cr. P.C. or Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of offenders Act to the appellant instead of imposing a sentence of fine on him. We, therefore, set aside the sentence imposed upon the appellant and remit the case to the Trial Court (Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways) Bhusawal to pass an appropriate order under either of the two provisions referred to above. The fine which has already been paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. The appellant shall appear before the Magistrate on any date during the second week of February 1983 to enable the Trial-Court to pass orders as directed above.” 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 6 ( 2026:HHC:381 ) 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 toa bright future." 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. Therefore, 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 while upholding his conviction. The offences for which the accused has been convicted cannot be said to be heinous in 7 ( 2026:HHC:381 ) nature. Resultantly, while upholding the conviction of the accused under Sections 454 & 380 of IPC, taking into account that he is the first offender and facing the agony of trial since the year 2009, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., is set-aside. Accordingly, the accused is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, after due admonition, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, 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 bond be furnished within a period of six weeks from today. 13. However, it is made clear that in case, 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. 8 ( 2026:HHC:381 ) 14. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) 1st January, 2026 Judge (raman) 9