Supreme Court Grants Probation to Elderly Convict in Cross-FIR Case
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan, addressed the issue of sentencing in a long-pending criminal dispute arising from a family feud. The appellant, convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sought relief based on a compromise reached in a cross-case involving the same incident. The Supreme Court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the age of the accused and the prolonged litigation.
Background of the Case
The case originated from two cross-complaints involving a dispute between two groups of the same family. The incident took place on January 1, 1993, leading to the registration of:
- FIR No. 1/1993 – Filed against the appellant Ramesh and five other family members.
- FIR No. 9/1993 – Filed by Ramesh’s group against another set of family members.
Both cases were investigated separately, resulting in two distinct criminal trials:
- Sessions Case No. 31/1993 – The appellant and his co-accused were convicted for multiple IPC offenses.
- Criminal Case No. 584/1998 – The accused in the cross-case were given the benefit of probation.
Judgment of the Lower Courts
Trial Court Decision
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, convicted the appellant Ramesh under:
- Section 148 IPC (Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon)
- Section 307 IPC (Attempt to murder) – Later set aside by the High Court
- Section 326 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons)
- Section 325 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt)
- Section 452 IPC (House trespass after preparation for assault)
- Section 323 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt)
High Court Decision
The Rajasthan High Court, in its judgment dated November 9, 2023, modified the conviction by:
- Setting aside the conviction under Sections 307, 148, and 149 IPC.
- Upholding the conviction under Sections 326, 325, 452, and 323 IPC.
- Reducing the sentence to six months of rigorous imprisonment along with fines.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant Ramesh sought relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that:
- The dispute arose from a family feud, leading to two cross-FIRs on the same day.
- The accused in the cross-case were released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
- A compromise had been reached between both groups during the trial of the cross-case.
- At the time of the appeal, the appellant was 70 years old and had already served more than four months in custody.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State of Rajasthan opposed the appeal, stating:
- The High Court had already considered the nature of injuries and reduced the sentence.
- The grant of probation would send a wrong message to society, given the severity of the offenses.
- The High Court had rightly declined to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Settlement and Cross-Case Consideration
“Having gone through the records, we are satisfied that the two criminal cases were in reality cross cases filed by two groups of the same family relating to the same transaction.”
Age and Prolonged Litigation
“The present appellant is about 70 years old. His conviction under the more serious offense under Section 307 IPC has already been set aside by the High Court.”
Need for Probation
“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 in the cross-case.”
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-grants-anticipatory-bail-in-section-306-ipc-case/
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating:
“Accordingly, we allow the appeal by directing the release of the appellant by extending the benefit of Section 4 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
Directions Issued
- The appellant was released on probation instead of serving the remaining sentence.
- He was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and a surety for the same amount.
- He was directed to maintain peace and good conduct for six months.
- A fine of Rs. 100 was imposed as prosecution expenses.
Impact of the Judgment
The ruling highlights the Supreme Court’s approach to sentencing in cases involving long-pending disputes and cross-FIRs. The Court emphasized:
- That family disputes leading to criminal cases should be resolved amicably if possible.
- That the passage of time and the age of the accused are crucial considerations in sentencing.
- That courts should adopt a balanced approach in cross-case litigation.
Conclusion
The case of Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan reaffirms the principles of fairness in criminal sentencing. By extending the benefit of probation to the appellant, the Supreme Court has ensured consistency in the treatment of cross-FIR cases and highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in cases involving prolonged litigation and family disputes.
Petitioner Name: Ramesh.Respondent Name: State of Rajasthan.Judgment By: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.Place Of Incident: Gangapur City, Rajasthan.Judgment Date: 09-01-2025.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ramesh-vs-state-of-rajasthan-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-01-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in Judgment by N. Kotiswar Singh
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
