The Allahabad High Court has refused to give the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to a man convicted of attempt to murder. It held that the law’s reformative purpose does not extend to offences committed in a premeditated and deliberate manner. Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed a criminal appeal filed in 1986 and upheld the conviction of Atar Singh alias Atra under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 06.01.1986 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Agra. The trial court convicted Bachaka alias Bachu Mehtor under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Co-accused Atar Singh alias Atra and Ugri were convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment each.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 12:30 a.m. at the house of Summer in Village Talgaon, Police Station Bah, District Agra. Armed men entered the house and woke him up. Atar Singh allegedly caught hold of Summer while Bachaka fired at him, and the shot struck him above his left eye. The prosecution said the motive was earlier litigation between Summer and Bachaka, which Summer had won.
The doctor who examined Summer recorded a grievous firearm injury with tattooing and blackening, and noted that the sight of the eye was lost completely.
Bachaka and Ugri died while the appeal was pending, and the appeal abated against them. The case therefore continued only for Atar Singh.
Arguments Before the Court
Advocate Satya Narayan Yadav, appearing for the surviving appellant, argued that the FIR gave Atar Singh only the role of catching hold of the injured. He pointed to contradictions in the statements of the two eyewitnesses: the informant, Smt. Baijanti, and her husband, the injured Summer. He argued that the informant’s presence at the spot was doubtful, because Summer had said he told his wife about the gunshot after he was hit. He also noted that the X-ray report and later treatment records were never brought on record. On these grounds, he sought the benefit of doubt for the appellant.
The Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State opposed the appeal. The State argued that the inconsistencies were minor and were bound to occur in witness testimony. The State also said the doctor’s opinion settled the nature of the injury and the weapon used. On motive, the State submitted that the appellants had lost the property dispute twice, so they, not the injured, had a reason to commit the offence.
Court’s Findings on the Injured Witness
The Court held that Summer’s presence at the place of occurrence could not be doubted. It observed: “Even if the presence of P.W.-1 at the place of occurrence is not accepted, the same would not create any doubt regarding the presence or credibility of the injured witness.”
The Court noted that Summer had specifically said the surviving appellant held him during the attack. It also noted that the injury was caused by a firearm on a vital part of the body. The Court held: “The nature, location and severity of the injury indicate that the assault was made with the intention of causing the death of the injured.”
The Court found no good ground to reverse the trial court’s finding.
Probation of Offenders Act Not Applicable to Premeditated Crime
On whether Atar Singh should get probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Court said the provision is reformative in nature. However, it held that its benefit cannot be extended regardless of the gravity of the offence. The Court observed: “The provision is not intended to provide shelter or to extend undue leniency to an offender whose conduct demonstrates deliberate planning and a conscious determination to commit the crime.”
The Court added that granting probation in this case “would not only undermine the seriousness of the offence but may also send an undesirable message to society that even offences committed with deliberate planning and criminal intent may be dealt with leniently.” It held that the reformative purpose must be weighed against the gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed and the larger interest of society.
Outcome
The appeal of Atar Singh alias Atra was dismissed, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed. He is on bail, and the Court directed him to surrender before the trial court within a week to serve the remaining sentence. If he does not surrender, the trial court is free to take coercive measures in accordance with law.
Case Title: Bachka and others v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1986
Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
Date: 13.11.2026
