JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.08.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2005, whereby the Court below has convicted the appellant under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months' additional simple imprisonment. However, the appellant was acquitted for the offence u/s 452 and 376/511 IPC. 2. Facts, in nutshell, are that PW1 Badar Singh submitted an application on 24.10.2004 to the with the averments that in the night of 23.10.2004 at about 9 PM, appellant entered in his house and tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter in law who resides alone in the room. On the alarm raised by her, complainant came out and saw the appellant in the room of his daughter in law. 3. The I.O. during the course of investigation, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan; and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. 4. The case was, accordingly, committed to the court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Sessions Court, accordingly, framed the Charge against the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Badar Singh, PW2 Avtar Singh, PW3 Narayan Singh, PW4 Nain Singh, PW5 Heera Singh, PW6 Hayat Singh and PW7 Rajender Prasad. 7. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations made against him. 8. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court, vide the judgment, under challenge, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as afore-stated. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record. 10. Mr. 8. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court, vide the judgment, under challenge, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as afore-stated. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record. 10. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Section 451 IPC is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also does not want to lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the appellant may be extended the benefit of being the first-offender and he may be released on probation by giving him the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 11. Learned State Counsel appearing for the State, admits that he has not received any report about the criminal antecedents of the appellant, and admitted that appellant is the first-time offender. 12. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola" reported in 2001 SCC (Cri.) 2, 897, in paragraph no.7, has held as under: “7. Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as a useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to deleterious effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act." 13. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under: “4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct 1. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read as under: “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 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 5 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. 2. Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. 3. When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. 4. 4. The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. 5. The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned." 14. Section 4 of the Act would demonstrate that if a person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, in that event, considering the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, the Court, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, may release such person on probation of good conduct, on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, for a period not exceeding three years. Before releasing the offender, on probation, the Court must satisfy itself that 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. The Court before passing the order of release on probation may also call report of the Probation Officer. The Court while releasing on probation may also direct that accused shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer for a period not less than one year. 15. A careful reading of Section 4 of the Act would reveal that if the offence is punishable for a period more than 2 years, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, admonition of sentence shall not be required and if person, released on probation, is found involved in any offence during the period of probation or otherwise, is found behaving in violation of condition of bond, he shall be directed to serve out the sentence awarded by the court. In other words, while on probation, such person should not involve himself in subsequent offence or must honour the condition of his bond / surety bond and if he breaches the same, he has to serve out the sentence awarded by the Court. 16. In the present case the appellant is the first-time offender. The incident seems to have taken place 15 years ago. 17. Therefore, considering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in the opinion of the Court, the appellant should be released on probation in order to reform himself. 18. The present appeal, thus, stands disposed of. The conviction part of the appellant u/s 451 IPC is left intact. However, as far the sentence part is concerned, it is directed that the appellant shall be released on probation for a period of two years on furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. The Judge concerned shall be at liberty to impose such conditions while executing the bond which he feels fit in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if accused/appellant fails to observe good conduct and behaviour during probation, or is found violating any condition, to be imposed, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bond after calling the accused-appellant and to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 26.09.2019 for compliance. 19. Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/compliance.