PRATAP HAMRON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very outset of the hearing learned Counsel for the revisionist Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar has submitted that he has nothing to say about the conviction order. He has submitted that at the time of sentencing the convict, the learned Trial Judge had not considered the family background, the status and social factors attached with the convict and the learned Trial Judge proceeded to sentence the convict on other consideration. According to Mr. Kumar, at the time of sentencing a convict, particularly when he is a first time offender, the learned Trial Court should consider the provisions under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and release the first time offender on certain conditions.

(2.) In this regard he has referred the several case laws. In (1981) 1 SCC 447 (Ved Prakash vs the State of Haryana) Hon'ble Justice V.R.Krishna Iyear was pleased to observe in his inimitable style that "we must emphasis that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court should have collected materials necessary to help award a just punishment in the circumstances. The social background and the personal factors of the crime-doer are very relevant although in practice Criminal Courts have hardly paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if Sec. 360, Cr.P.C. is not attracted, it is the duty of the sentencing Court to be activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant."

(3.) The learned counsel has also cited decisions reported in (1997) 7 SCC 756 (State of Haryana vs Prem Chand), (1999) 5 SCC 732 (State of Karnataka vs. Muddappa) and also an unreported decision of Hon'ble High Court at Bombay in connection with Criminal Revision Application No. 376 of 2019 pronounced on July 15, 2024 in support of his contention that there was enough scope for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to release the convict/petitioner under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after taking into consideration the family background, social status, the number of children, financial condition etc of the convict. The sentencing process of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not show that he had taken all these considerations before sentencing the petitioner.