Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to an accused, in line with the benefit granted to another accused in a cross-case. This decision followed a settlement reached between the parties and the absence of any prior criminal antecedents or adverse conduct of the appellant. 

• The case stemmed from violent clashes between two groups of a family, which led to separate criminal trials and differing outcomes. 
• Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held in the matter of Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan. 

What was the Background of Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan ? 

• The case involves two family groups who had a running feud that resulted in violent clashes on 1st January 1993, between 6-7 AM in the morning. 
• Two separate FIRs were filed at Gadhmora Police Station on the same day. 
• FIR No. 1/1993 was filed against Ramesh (appellant) and five others: Khiladi, Shambhu, Shalla alias Suresh, Janki, and Rupi. 
• FIR No. 9/1993 was filed as a counter-complaint by the other group against five persons: Chhotu, Kamal, Hanso, Safedi, and Ramhari. 
• Both FIRs led to separate criminal trials - Session Case No. 31/93 and Criminal Case No. 584/1998 (33/1993). 
• The complainant in Session Case No. 31/93 was Chhotu, who was also an accused in the cross-case (Criminal Case No. 584/1998). 
• The complainant in Criminal Case No. 584/1998 was Jankidevi, who belonged to the appellant Ramesh's group. 
• During the incident, Ramesh allegedly suffered injuries and fainted when he came to rescue the complainant Ramkhiladi (son of Janaki). 
• Both cases involved similar charges including sections related to rioting, causing hurt, criminal trespass, and assault. 
• The accused in both cases were members of the same extended family who had been involved in long-standing disputes. 
• During the pendency of Criminal Case No. 584/1998, both groups reached an amicable settlement and filed a formal agreement before the court. 
• The appellant Ramesh, who is now approximately 70 years old, has no previous criminal record or antecedents. 
• The entire legal proceedings in these cross-cases have continued for about 25-30 years, from 1993 to the present date. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court noted that while these were cross-cases arising from the same incident, they were tried and disposed of at different times by different courts, contrary to the established principle that cross-cases should ideally be tried by the same court. 
• The Court observed that despite a settlement being reached between the parties in Criminal Case No. 584/1998, no such formal compromise was filed before the court in Session Case No. 31/93 either by the complainant or any of the injured parties. 
• The High Court took cognizance of the fact that the parties were closely related to each other but had maintained animosity for more than 27 years at the time of deposition. 
• The Court observed that while considering the case of Ramesh, though the period of trial and prolonged pendency of appeal were noted, the nature of injuries and sentencing provisions under Section 326 IPC warranted substantive punishment. 
• The Supreme Court observed that both criminal cases were in reality cross-cases filed by two groups of the same family, with the genesis traced to a single clash occurring on January 1, 1993. 
• The Supreme Court noted that no adverse material against the conduct of the appellant or criminal antecedents had been brought to its notice during the proceedings. 
• The Court recognized that extending similar benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant as given to the accused in the cross-case would be appropriate, given the settlement between parties and the appellant's advanced age. 
• The Supreme Court observed that since the more serious charge under Section 307 IPC against the appellant had been set aside by the High Court, the remaining charges warranted consideration for probation benefits. 

Probation of Offences Act, 1958 

• Section 4 - "Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct" 
  • Allows courts to release offenders on probation instead of sentencing for offenses not punishable with death or life imprisonment 
  • Requires offenders to enter into a bond, with or without sureties 
  • Period of probation not to exceed three years 
• Section 5 - "Power of court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs" 
  • Courts can order offenders to pay reasonable compensation for loss/injury 
  • Costs of proceedings can be imposed 
  • Amount can be recovered as fine under CrPC sections 386 and 387 
• Section 7 - "Report of probation officer to be confidential" 
  • Probation officer's reports must be treated as confidential 
  • Court may communicate substance to offender 
  • Offender may be given opportunity to produce evidence on matters in report 
• Section 8 - "Variation of conditions of probation" 
  • Courts can vary bond conditions on probation officer's application 
  • Duration can be extended up to 3 years from original order 
  • New conditions can be added with hearing opportunity to offender and sureties 
• Section 11 - "Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of courts in appeal and revision" 
  • Any court empowered to try and sentence offenders can make orders under this Act 
  • High Court or other courts can make orders during appeal or revision 
  • Appellate courts cannot impose greater punishment than trial court 
• Section 12 - "Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction" 
  • Person dealt with under Sections 3 or 4 shall not suffer disqualification attached to conviction 
  • Exception: If person is subsequently sentenced for original offense after release under Section 4 
• Section 14 - "Duties of probation officers" 
  • Required to inquire into circumstances of accused persons 
  • Supervise probationers and assist in finding employment 
  • Help offenders pay court-ordered compensation 
  • Submit reports to court as directed