Convicts Punishable With Life Imprisonment Not Eligible For Probation: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has ruled that offenders convicted of crimes carrying a potential life imprisonment sentence are ineligible for the benefit of probation, regardless of whether a lesser term is actually awarded.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja adjudicated upon the sentencing of a convict previously found guilty of kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The primary legal question addressed was whether a person convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 could seek release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Ineligibility for Probation in Serious Offences

The Court clarified that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 excludes offences of a serious nature from its purview. Specifically, Section 6 of the Act applies only to those not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Drawing from established precedents, the bench noted that even if a statute provides for a range of punishments starting from a lower term, the mere possibility of awarding life imprisonment disqualifies the convict from probation.

Regarding the age of the convict, the Court observed that for the purposes of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the relevant age is the age on the date of the sentencing order, not the date of the offence. Since the respondent was over 21 years old at the time of conviction, the special protections for younger offenders did not apply.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The policy underlying the Act appears to be that it is only in cases of not very serious nature viz. offences not punishable with imprisonment for life that the convicted person should have the benefit of provisions of the Act. Where, however, the offence for which a person has been convicted is of a serious nature punishable with imprisonment for life, the benefit of the Act would not be permissible in his case."

Mandatory Minimum Sentences Under POCSO Act

Adopting the reasoning of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. Prathap & Anr., the Delhi High Court emphasized that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is a special enactment that mandates a minimum sentence. The Court held that since the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came into effect after the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, its mandatory sentencing provisions override the general provisions for probation in cases involving sexual offences against children.

The Court has the following directions:

"i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 03 months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act;

ii) Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 07 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 03 months under Section 366 IPC;

iii) Rigorous Imprisonment of a period of 03 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 01 month under Section 363 IPC;

iv) Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 months under Section 342 IPC.

All sentences shall run concurrently and respondent/convict shall get benefit of Section 428 Cr. PC for the period during which he remained in custody during investigation/trial."

Background:

The case arose from an incident in 2014 where the respondent was accused of kidnapping and sexual assault. While the Trial Court had originally passed an order on December 18, 2019, the High Court set it aside on May 04, 2026, convicting the respondent under Sections 363, 366, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The respondent's counsel argued for leniency, citing that the convict was 21 at the time of the offence, was the sole bread-earner for his elderly mother, and had no prior criminal record. He relied on Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar ( "2024 INSC 448": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 64) to seek probation. However, the State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the serious nature of the crime and the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prohibited such leniency. The Court ultimately balanced the mitigating factors by awarding the minimum prescribed sentence of 10 years rather than a longer term.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 236/2021 & CRL.M.A. 15584/2026
Case Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. DEEPAK
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr. Atiq Ur Rehman, Advocates along with SI Sandeep Bishnoi, PS Mayapuri
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dinesh Malik, Mr. Puneet Jain, Mr. Lavish Arora, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 345