Case title:
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Subhash Chand
Date of Order:
8th December 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthala
Parties:
Appellant/Non-Applicant: State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent/Applicant/Convict: Subhash Chand
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’ or ‘the Court’), in accordance with section 304-A of the IPC, ruled against providing the advantages of the Probation of Offenders Act to an individual who was convicted of causing death due to rash and negligent driving. The High Court referenced the judgment in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that the Probation Act cannot be applied in cases involving such offenses. The case was scheduled for further hearing to assess the gravity of the offense on 14th December 2023.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Probation Act):
- Section 4
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 304 A
OVERVIEW:
- Subhash Chand is a convicted individual who has applied for release or probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Can probation be granted under the Probation of Offenders Act post-conviction in a case involving fatality due to negligent driving?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT/NON-APPLICANT:
- Opposed the probation emphasizing the gravity of offenses associated with negligent driving.
- Actions of such nature present a significant threat to public safety and should be treated with utmost seriousness.
- Granting probation in such cases may not sufficiently convey the gravity of the offenses or the potential harm caused to individuals and society at large.
- In cases involving reckless driving, a strong deterrent is essential to dissuade individuals from engaging in negligent behaviour on the roads.
- It is especially critical to deter such actions, considering the alarming increase in road accidents.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
- The respondent should be granted probation given his personal circumstances.
- At the time of the offense, the respondent was 29 years old, married with two-school going children. His wife held a clerical position.
- Respondent’s employment as a driver in a government position at Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, reflects his stability and responsibility.
- The fact that the respondent had previously been in a trial and was acquitted, establishes his unblemished record.
- Given the respondent’s background and circumstances, probation would be a suitable path for his reformation.
- Relied on the judgments of Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2008, and Ram Rattan v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1989.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- In the case of Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court had observed that the Probation Act cannot be invoked in cases involving rash or negligent driving resulting in deaths of human beings.
- The ruling in State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh lays down that the characteristics of the offenses outlined in Section 304-A of the IPC which deals with causing death by negligence, are not eligible for the lenient provisions specified in Section 4 of the Probation Act.
- The Court emphasized the importance of rectifying behaviour through enhanced training in traffic laws and heightened moral responsibility, particularly in light of the escalating number of road accidents.
- Based on binding precedents, the Court opined that it was not permissible to grant the benefit of the Probation Act in cases involving negligent driving.
- The case was set to be scheduled for another hearing to assess the severity of the offense on 14th December 2023.
- The High Court ruled against extending the benefit of the Probation Act to the respondent who has been convicted of rash and negligent driving leading to death under section 304 of IPC.
CONCLUSION:
The High Court’s order, with specific reference to the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance asserting that the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked in cases where individuals are convicted of rash or negligent driving leading to fatal accidents. The Court’s decision reiterated the crucial aspect of deterrence, especially considering the concerning rise in road accidents. The judgment highlights the Court’s commitment to discouraging negligent driving practices by refraining from applying lenient provisions under the Probation Act in situations where individuals are involved in reckless or negligent driving leading to fatal accidents.
