2021 (1) TMI 1278 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking continuing detention of the Appellants to serve out the remaining sentence - Minimum duration of imprisonment - imposition of punishment less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the statute - benefit of probation under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - HELD THAT - The facts of the present case are that the Appellants have not served out the minimum sentence of 7 years though they have served about half the sentences. They were aged under 19 21 years of age as on the date of offence but not on the date of sentence. The redeeming feature in their case is that the person who suffered, appears to have forgiven them, possibly with the passage of time. There is no adverse report against them about their conduct in jail otherwise the same would have been brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the State. Faced with the aforesaid legal position, this is a fit case that the benefit of probation can be extended to the Appellants under the said act in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act on completion of half the sentence. The Appellants are released on probation of good conduct Under Section 4 of the said Act on their completion of half the sentence and on their entering into a bond with two sureties each to ensure that they maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining part of their sentence, failing which they can be called upon to serve that part of the sentence. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and its mandatory minimum sentence.
2. Consideration of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for offenders under 21 years of age.
3. The impact of a compromise deed between the complainant and the appellants.
4. The legal interpretation of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in conjunction with mandatory sentencing laws.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and its Mandatory Minimum Sentence:
The appellants were convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 7 years. The trial court sentenced the appellants to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The legal position, as argued by the State, is that courts cannot impose less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the statute, as supported by the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das (2019) 4 SCC 125.

2. Consideration of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for Offenders Under 21 Years of Age:
The appellants sought the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, due to their age at the time of the offense. Section 6 of the Act restricts imprisonment for offenders under 21 years unless the court records reasons for not applying probation. The court referred to Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1088, and Masarullah v. State of Tamil Nadu (1982) 3 SCC 458, which emphasize the reformative intent of the Act and the need to protect young offenders from the negative influences of jail life.

3. The Impact of a Compromise Deed Between the Complainant and the Appellants:
The appellants presented a compromise deed where the complainant expressed no objection to their release on bail or acquittal. The court noted that the appellants had already served about half of their sentence. The compromise and the good conduct of the appellants during their imprisonment were considered as redeeming factors.

4. The Legal Interpretation of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in Conjunction with Mandatory Sentencing Laws:
The court analyzed the non-obstante clause in Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which allows the court to release an offender on probation despite any other law. This was supported by the judgment in Ishar Das v. State of Punjab (1973) 2 SCC 65, which emphasized that the Act should be interpreted broadly to fulfill its reformative purpose. The court concluded that the benefit of probation under the Act is not excluded by the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 397 IPC.

Conclusion:
The court decided that the appellants, who were under 21 years at the time of the offense, should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The appellants were released on probation of good conduct after serving half of their sentence, with the condition that they maintain peace and good behavior for the remaining part of their sentence. The appeals were disposed of with each party bearing their own costs.