S.395 IPC | Benefit Under Probation Of Offenders Act Not Available For Dacoity Convicts: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can't be extended to persons convicted for the offence of dacoity under Section 395 IPC, as the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empowers Courts to release certain offenders, not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, on probation of good conduct.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha was deciding a criminal appeal filed by the State challenging the trial court's order granting probation to the Respondents despite their conviction for dacoity.

Dacoity is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term extending to ten years.

Allowing the State's appeal, the High Court observed that Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act expressly excludes its application to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

“The phrase used in S.4 of the PO Act is “not punishable with death or imprisonment for life”. It cannot be read conjunctively so as to mean that it provides an alternative sentence for an offence. But it must be read disjunctively,” it held.

Reliance was placed on Jagdev Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) where the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the benefit of S.4 of the PO Act could be extended in a case involving S.326 IPC, which offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 yrs.

This was answered in the negative, and it was held that both Sections 4 and 6 of the PO Act clearly provide that the benefit of the Sections will not be available to persons found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.

“The plain meaning of the Section is that the Section cannot be invoked by a person who is convicted for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. The fact that imprisonment for a lesser term can also be awarded for the offence would not take it out of the category of offences punishable with imprisonment for life,” the Court thus held.

Accordingly, the Court withdrew the benefit of probation but confined the sentence to the period already undergone by the Respondents.

Appearance: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State. SI Himanshu P.S. Alipur for Appellant; Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Krishan Kumar and Mr. Sandeep, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: State v. Sunil @ Pahalwan & Anr

Case no.: CRL.A. 1290/2019

Click here to read order