Supreme Court Grants Probation To Appellant After Cross‑case Settlement; Extends Probation Act Benefit Under Article 142

A bench of Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and B.V. Nagarathna heard an appeal by Ramesh against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, which had partly set aside his convictions but affirmed convictions under Sections 326, 325, 452 and 323 IPC and modified sentence. The appeal concerned whether the appellant, who belonged to one of two rival family groups involved in cross-complaints arising from the same incident on 01.01.1993, could be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act in view of a compromise recorded in the parallel trial.

Decision Summary: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation Act to the appellant. The Court noted that the two FIRs were "cross-complaints filed by two groups of the family relating to the same transaction" and that a settlement recorded in the co-pending magistrate's trial had led that court to release the other group on probation. The Court observed the appellant had no criminal antecedents, was about 70 years old, had already undergone over four months' custody and had been acquitted of the more serious charge under Section 307 IPC by the High Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Under the circumstances, we are inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant the benefit of the Probation Act to the present appellant also, which had been granted to the other accused belonging to the other conflicting group in the cross case, considering the fact that a settlement was reached between the parties and neither any criminal antecedents nor any adverse material against the conduct of the appellant, have been brought to the notice of this Court." Pursuant to this, the Court directed the appellant's release on probation subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with a like surety for six months, an undertaking to maintain peace and appear when called, and payment of Rs.100 as prosecution expenses. The Court noted the appellant had already been released on interim bail.

Background: The dispute arose from an early‑morning clash on 01.01.1993 between two factions of the same extended family, resulting in two FIRs (No.1/1993 and No.9/1993 PS Gadhmora). The sessions court at Gangapur City convicted several accused, including Ramesh, on multiple counts by a 1995 judgment. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court in November 2023 acquitted Ramesh of offences under Sections 307, 148 and 149 IPC but affirmed convictions under Sections 326, 325, 452 and 323 IPC and imposed concurrent sentences, the maximum being six months' imprisonment. In the parallel magistrate's trial arising from the counter FIR, five accused were convicted under Sections 148/149 but, having filed an agreement and in view of prolonged delay, first offence status and advanced age, the magistrate in August 2019 released them on probation under the Probation Act. The appellant sought parity with the accused in the cross case; the High Court declined that relief on merits. The Supreme Court, after examining records and noting the interconnected transactions and recorded compromise in the magistrate's case, found it appropriate to grant probation consistent with the concession extended to the other group. The appeal was allowed on the terms directed and interim bail conditions were made final upon furnishing bonds.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 46 (Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.15651 of 2024)
Case Title: Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment]
For the Respondent(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment]