- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Pal .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, a cousin of the victim, was accused of attempting to rape her on 1 August 1989. The trial court concluded that the prosecution had not proved the consummation of rape but had “unerringly” proved an attempt. It convicted the respondent under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000. On appeal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh affirmed the conviction but, taking note of the relationship between the parties and the age of the accused, released him on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged that grant of probation before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a person convicted of an attempt to commit rape under Section 376/511 IPC.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the offence of attempted rape preclude the application of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-State's Arguments
- The offence of rape (and by implication, an attempt to commit rape) is extremely grave, punishable even with death or life imprisonment; therefore, the Act was never intended to apply to such offences.
- Granting probation in such cases undermines the deterrent purpose of punishment and its impact on society.
- No leniency should be shown once an attempt to commit rape is established.
Respondent-Accused's Arguments
- The accused and victim are related; the incident occurred more than 14 years ago and the High Court’s order has been in force for about six years without any complaint about the respondent’s conduct.
- Given the long passage of time and absence of adverse behaviour, the Supreme Court should not disturb the High Court’s exercise of discretion under Section 4.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana v. Prem Chand (1997) 7 SCC 756 | The Supreme Court had previously upheld the High Court’s grant of probation to an accused who was under 21 years of age in an attempted rape case. | The Court relied on this decision as persuasive authority to justify non-interference with the High Court’s similar grant of probation in the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged that an attempt to commit rape is a serious offence because, if completed, it violates a woman’s “most valuable possession” — her character, reputation, dignity, and honour. Nonetheless, the Probation of Offenders Act is designed to reform offenders who are capable of rehabilitation. The Court emphasised that discretion under Section 4 must consider both the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, and noted that Section 6 specifically encourages non-custodial treatment for offenders below 21 years of age. Here, the respondent was under 21 on the date of occurrence. Drawing on the precedent in State of Haryana v. Prem Chand and the “peculiar circumstances” of this case (youth of the offender, familial relationship, lapse of time, and clean conduct since the High Court’s order), the Court found no compelling reason to disturb the High Court’s exercise of discretion, although it expressly disapproved some of the High Court’s reasoning.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order releasing the respondent on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Implications: The respondent remains at liberty under probationary conditions. While the Court reiterates the gravity of attempted rape, it confirms that probation can still be granted where statutory factors—particularly the offender’s youth and prospects for reform—are satisfied. The decision does not establish new legal principles but applies existing precedent to a fact-specific situation.
Order
1. The State of Himachal Pradesh calls in question legality of the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh directing release of the respondent-accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) while upholding the conviction for an offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”).
2. The factual aspects need not be gone into in detail as the view expressed by the High Court has to be tested on the principles of law.
3. The victim and the accused are related to each other, the latter being the cousin brother of the former. Law was set in motion on 1-8-1989 on the accusation that the accused committed rape on the victim. Investigation was undertaken and the accused faced trial. The trial Judge was of the view that commission of rape was not established. However, an attempt to do so was established unerringly. Three years' custodial sentence and a fine of Rs 3000 was imposed. In appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction, but considering the relationship and the age of the accused, applied Section 4 of the Act.
4. According to learned counsel for the appellant State, looking at the gravity of the offence and its impact on the society, the beneficial provisions of the Act should not have been extended and they are not intended to be extended in such a case. The offence of rape is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and, therefore, the Act has no application to an offence under Section 376 IPC. When there was an established attempt to commit rape, no leniency should have been shown.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused and the victim are related to each other, the incident is more than fourteen years old, the High Court judgment is in operation for about six years, and no adverse report about the conduct of the respondent has been received and in that background, the judgment of the High Court should not be interfered with.
6. According to us, the offence of an attempt to commit rape is a serious offence, as ultimately if translated into the act leads to an assault on the most valuable possession of a woman i.e character, reputation, dignity and honour. In a traditional and conservative country like India, any attempt to misbehave or sexually assault a woman is one of the most depraved acts. The Act is intended to reform the persons who can be reformed and would cease to be a nuisance in the society. But the discretion to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 4 is hedged with a condition about the nature of offence and the character of the offender. Section 6 of the Act makes the provisions applicable in cases where offenders are under 21 years of age, as restrictions on imprisonment of offenders have been indicated in the said provision. In a case involving similar facts, this Court in State of Haryana v. Prem Chand (1997) 7 SCC 756 upheld the judgment of the High Court which extended the benefit of provisions under Section 4 of the Act. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that on the date of occurrence the accused was less than 21 years old, we feel this is a case where no interference is called for with the judgment of the High Court, though some of the conclusions arrived at by the High Court do not have our approval. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Alert