In a case decided by the Supreme Court on 11th May 2015, it was held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should not be extended to persons convicted of crimes against women. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit made the above observations in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sri Chand (Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2009).
In that case, the accused person had been convicted of an offence under Section 354 of IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman). Initially, the accused had been charged for an offence of attempt to commit rape against a minor girl under Sections 376, 511 of IPC. However, the trial court found that the offence of attempt to commit rape was not proved, and that instead an offence under Section 354 of IPC was proved against the accused for outraging the modesty of a woman. Instead of sending the accused to jail, the trial court gave benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused in view of his clean record and no convictions in the past. The Rajasthan High Court did not interfere with the order of acquittal of the accused for the offence of attempt to commit rape.
When this matter went before the Supreme Court, on an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that the offence of attempt to commit rape was not proved. However, relying upon two previous judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Azhar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31, and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dharam Pal, (2004) 9 SCC 681, the Supreme Court disapproved of the manner in which the trial court granted benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused in the present case. The Supreme Court observed as under
“In the present case the accused is not a minor, rather he has committed an offence against a minor girl who is helpless. Further, it is clear from the evidence on record that he ran away only when the prosecutrix screamed and PW3 came to the place of incident, which goes on to show that the accused could have had worse intentions. The offence is heinous in nature and there is no reason for granting benefit of probation in this case. The Trial Court has not given any special consideration to the character of the accused apart from the fact that this was the first conviction of the accused. We find this is far from sufficient to grant probation in an offence like outraging the modesty of a woman.”
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Supreme Court modified the order of granting benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused and instead sentenced him to rigourous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 354 of IPC.
About decision of the Supreme Court is in tune with the recent trends where crime against women is taken seriously and no undue leniency is shown to a person accused of an offence against women. It is noteworthy that in 2013, the Parliament had also amended the criminal laws to lay down strict provisions for offences against women.
Full judgement of the Supreme Court is available online at this link.
