Allahabad High Court

YOGENDRA @ JOGENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 12 March 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The conviction is affirmed but the sentence is set aside and the appellant is released on probation of good conduct for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Summary

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 452, 504, 506 and 307/34 of the IPC arising from an assault on a retired army officer's family. The appellant challenged only the sentence, seeking relief under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, claiming he is a first‑time offender and the incident is old. The High Court examined the evidence, found the conviction supported by reliable proof, and therefore affirmed it. However, noting the appellant's clean record, advanced age, and the lapse of time since the offence, the Court exercised its power under Section 4 of the Probation Act to replace imprisonment with a one‑year probation order with two sureties of Rs.20,000 each. The trial court’s sentence was set aside, and the appellant was directed to file the bond within three months. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction recorded by the trial court should be interfered with on appeal
Whether the appellant is eligible for release on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court should be modified in view of the appellant's circumstances

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 360
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — s. 4

Subjects

Probation
Sentencing
Criminal Appeal
First‑time Offender
Section 4
Section 360
Conviction affirmed
Sentence modification

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2683 of 2024

Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shravan Kumar Pandey, Shyam Narain
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Vardhan Singh, G.A., Nikil
Pathak, Sunil Kumar Mishra

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 15, Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 567 of 2018 (State vs. Yogendra and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 141 of 2017, under Sections 323/34,
325/34, 452, 504, 506 & 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station Salempur, District
Bulandshahr, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment and fine as recorded therein.

3. Vide order dated 14.10.2025, the appellant is on interim bail.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, a retired Army
personnel, lodged a written report stating that on 14.05.2017 at about 7:00
PM, the accused persons obstructed the passage by dumping construction
material in front of his house and abused his son when objected to. It is
further alleged that at about 9:30 PM, the accused persons, armed with
weapons, entered the house of the complainant and assaulted his son Sumit
Tomar. When the complainant's family members namely Vaidika @ Julie
and Sushila Devi intervened, they were also assaulted, misbehaved with and
threatened.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses
namely PW1 Sardar Singh Tomar, PW2 Dr. Rajiv Verma, PW3 Smt. Sushila
Devi, PW4 Vaidika @ Julie, PW5 Constable Omkar Singh, PW6 SI
Krishnapal Singh and PW7 Sumit Tomar. Documentary evidence includes
FIR, written report, GD entry, site plan, charge sheet and medical reports.
CRLA No. 2683 of 2024
2

6. PW4 Vaidika @ Julie and PW7 Sumit Tomar have not fully supported the
prosecution version and have made contradictory statements regarding the
occurrence. PW2 Dr. Rajiv Verma has also stated that injuries may be
caused by blunt object or fall, which creates some doubt regarding the exact
manner of assault.

7. However, from the overall evidence on record, it is established that an
altercation did take place between the parties and injuries were sustained by
the complainant side in the incident. The learned trial court has rightly
appreciated the evidence and recorded conviction of the appellant under
Sections 323/34, 325/34, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., which does not call for
interference.

8. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction,
appellants have preferred the present appeal.

9. At the time of hearing the argument of learned counsel for appellant who
has fairly stated that the conviction on merits is not being challenged and the
arguments are confined to the question of sentence seeking benefit of
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State supports the judgment of conviction but
submits that the present appellant have no criminal antecedents and the
incident is quite old.

11. After considering the arguments and after perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that except the merits of the case, so far
as the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants for providing benefits of
Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is concerned, it is essential to discuss the legal
position and law pronounced in this regard. Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, is extracted hereunder :-

"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation
of good conduct.-(1) When any person is found guilty of
having committed an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is
found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence
and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release
him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any
punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a
bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive
CRLA No. 2683 of 2024
3

sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding
three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an
offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if
any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the
place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which
the offender is likely to live during the period for which he
enters into the bond."

12. A similar provision finds place in the Code of Criminal Procedure, there,
Section 360 provides :-

Section 360- Order to release on probation of good conduct or after
admonition :-

When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an
offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of
seven years, or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or
any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the
offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard
being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the
circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient
that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the
Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct
that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties,
to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not
exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the
second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the
Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should
be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the
proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class forwarding the accused to
or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall
dispose of the case in the manner provided by Sub-Section (2).

13. Upon considering the record of the case, the evidences available on
record, findings of the Court, I have satisfied that the conviction recorded by
trial court is based on cogent and reliable evidences and does not call for
interference, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is affirmed.
CRLA No. 2683 of 2024
4

14. However, on the issue of sentence, it is evident that the appellant is first
time offender. The occurrence is of the year 1984. The appellant has faced
ordeal of trial and an appeal for a long period. The appellant is old person,
having no criminal history. No adverse material have been produced
regarding his conduct. In these circumstances, this Court finds appropriate to
invoke the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
instead of sending the appellant to imprisonment.

15. While upholding the conviction, the sentence imposed by the trial court
is set aside. The appellant Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh is directed to be
released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year and are
directed to file two sureties, each to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with
personal bonds before District Probation Officer concerned and also an
undertaking to the effect that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour
during the period of one year from today. He will not commit any offence
during this period and will not involve in any criminal activities. In case of
breach of any of the conditions, the benefit of probation shall stand cancelled
and the appellant will be required to undergo the original sentence as
awarded by the trial court.

16. The said bonds are to be filed by the appellant within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment.

17. A certified copy of the order be also sent to the court concerned for
compliance.

18. Trial Court record shall also be sent back to the district court concerned.

19. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeal is partly
allowed.
March 13, 2026
Pravesh Mishra
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…