Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies Reformative Justice; Grants Probation After Upholding Conviction for Causing Death by Rash and Negligent Driving
Case Name: Lakshay Jain vs. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
Citation: CRR-2697-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court partly allowed the revision petition and modified the sentence awarded to the petitioner by directing his release on probation for two years. While upholding his conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, the Court held that the circumstances warranted a reformative approach rather than continued imprisonment. The Court noted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, the incident was accidental without intention or malice, the matter had been amicably settled with the victim’s family, and the petitioner had already undergone prolonged criminal proceedings spanning more than eleven years.
Summary: The FIR was registered after a road accident on 22.06.2014 in Ludhiana, where a motorcycle carrying the complainant and his mother was struck from behind by a Swift car, resulting in serious injuries to the mother, who later died on 03.07.2014. After trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, and the conviction was affirmed in appeal. In revision, the petitioner did not challenge the conviction but sought reduction of sentence and benefit of probation.
The petitioner relied on multiple mitigating factors including his age at the time (approx. 22 years), absence of prior or subsequent criminal conduct, the fact that he himself transported the injured to the hospital, prolonged trial duration, amicable settlement with the victim’s family, and compensation already awarded in MACT proceedings. The complainant supported the request for leniency. The State opposed the plea, arguing limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and concurrent findings of conviction.
The Court discussed the scope and purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act and referred extensively to judgments including Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar (1972) and Chellammal v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, reiterating that probation is aimed at reform rather than retribution, and courts must consider probation where statutory conditions are met unless expressly excluded. The Court also drew upon criminological theories, observing that punishment should not unnecessarily deprive society of a person capable of rehabilitation.
Decision: The revision was partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on probation for a period of two years upon furnishing an undertaking of good behaviour to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was placed under supervision of a probation officer and additionally directed to plant 50 indigenous trees and maintain them for five years, or alternatively perform equivalent community labour if unable to bear maintenance cost. In case of violation, the petitioner would be required to undergo the remaining sentence.