Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad High Court For Casually Granting Probation To Convicts In Brutal Attack Case

The Supreme Court has criticised the manner in which the Allahabad High Court has dealt with a case while granting probation to two men convicted for a brutal attack that left a victim with grievous injuries. The Court said that the accused were released on probation in ignorance of the adverse report submitted by the probation officer against them.

“The High Court, despite the overwhelming adverse report on the 'character of the offenders' and giving short shrift to the 'nature of the offence', released the accused on good conduct. There was nothing commending the Court to so release the accused, since the conduct, over the years, of the accused was anything other than 'good'.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, adding that despite the brutality of the attack and the serious injuries suffered by the victim, “the accused have gone scot-free without suffering a single day of imprisonment…”

The case arose from a 2003 incident in which the two accused allegedly attacked the victim with a cutting weapon and a firearm following a dispute involving neighbouring shops. The victim suffered cut injuries and gunshot wounds and continues to experience debilitating consequences of the assault.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹20,000 each.

The High Court upheld the conviction but extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (“PoO Act”), directing the accused to execute personal bonds of ₹20,000 each and maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.

The High Court relied on the passage of approximately 22 years since the incident and the absence of previous convictions.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the informant (brother of the victim) moved to the Supreme Court.

'Nature of offence' and 'character of offender' must guide probation

The bench noted that the victim had suffered cut injuries and gunshot wounds. It observed that the injuries, on a plain reading, fell within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC and that the offence ought to have been charged under Section 307 IPC rather than Section 308 IPC.

The Court, however, noted that the trial had proceeded on the charge under Section 308 IPC and that there was little it could do at that stage.

The bench expressed concern that the High Court had granted probation despite the seriousness of the offence and the material indicating that the accused had been involved in several other criminal cases.

The prosecution had informed the Court that the convicts had criminal antecedents and that preventive action had also been proposed against them. The Supreme Court called for a report from the Probation Officer, which listed multiple criminal cases involving both accused, including cases pending trial.

The Court noted that Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act requires the nature of the offence and the character of the offender to be considered while deciding whether release on probation is appropriate.

It added that the brutality of the crime and the grievous nature of the injuries ought to have persuaded the High Court to draw an adverse inference regarding the nature of the offence.

The Court also noted that Section 4(2) of the Act requires the court to consider the Probation Officer's report, if available, before passing an order under the provision.

It observed that the State had specifically brought the accused's criminal antecedents to the High Court's notice through a counter-affidavit. The record also contained a proposal for preventive action against them under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

Victim continues to suffer debilitating effects of attack

The Supreme Court took note of the Probation Officer's report detailing the victim's continuing physical condition more than two decades after the attack.

According to the report, the victim's right thumb was almost completely severed from the palm, while deep injury scars remained on both hands, the wrist, abdomen, neck, shoulder and face. The victim continued to experience acute pain while moving, sitting and standing and was required to wear a lumbar support belt.

The report also stated that the victim walked with great difficulty, suffered continuous pain and had lost substantial functionality in both upper limbs, with his right hand disabled. His medical treatment was continuing at a hospital in Lucknow.

SC expresses surprise at HC citing 22-year-old trial delay to show consideration to accused  

The Court observed that the accused had remained on bail and had not undergone even a single day of imprisonment to reject the High Court's reasoning that the accused persons had suffered for 22 years. It was the victim, pointed out the Court, who had continued to endure the debilitating effects of the attack, instead of the accused persons.

“We also are unable to comprehend as to why the High Court observed that the accused were suffering for twenty-two years. True, protracted trial is agonizing but here, the accused were on bail and merrily indulging in criminal activities. The victim, on the other hand, in the ensuing years was, day-in and dayout suffering the debilitating effects of the attack. The circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender should be the reigning factor in deciding as to whether it is expedient to release the accused on the premise of good conduct; which in the facts of this case is lacking. The brutality of the crime and the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, ought to have persuaded the Court to draw an adverse inference on the aspect of 'nature of offence'”, the Court observed.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, directing the accused persons to surrender. Further, the Criminal Appeal was restored before the High Court with a request to take up the appeal only after ensuring that the accused are taken into custody and then only the appeal be heard.

Appearance:

Mr. L.B. Rai, Adv. for the appellant

Mr. Namit Saxena, AoR for the State

Mr. Aishvary Vikram, AoR for the accused persons