Benefit Of Probation Can't Be Given To Those Guilty Of Causing Death By Rash Or Negligent Driving: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, cannot be granted to a person convicted of causing death by rash and negligent driving under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.Justice Virender Singh noted that “…..it has constantly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, cannot be granted to a person convicted of causing death by rash and negligent driving under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Virender Singh noted that “…..it has constantly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, should not be given to the person, who has been convicted for the offence for causing death, due to the rash and negligent driving.”
In 2014, the respondent was charged with offences punishable under Sections 279 IPC (rash driving), 337 IPC (causing hurt by act endangering life), and 304A IPC (causing death by negligence).
Later, in 2024, the appellate court upheld the conviction of the respondent but altered the sentence and granted her probation for three years.
The order of the appellate court was challenged by the state, contending that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted for an offence under Section 304-A IPC, which involves death due to rash and negligent driving.
Reiterating the decision of the Supreme court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000, the High Court noted that “Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.”
The Court remarked that extending probation in cases of rash and negligent driving is against the decision of the Supreme Court, and the appellate court had gone beyond the scope of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by imposing certain conditions.
Thus, the High Court set aside the appellate court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajika Gupta
Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 132 of 2025
Date of Decision: 03.09.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate