Supreme Court: Court Can’t Omit From Its Consideration Release Of Offender On Probation Unless Applicability Is Excluded In Case Where S. 4(1) Probation Act Is Attracted
The Supreme Court explained that if the Court in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and proper.
The Supreme Court held that unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are attracted, the Court cannot omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court which partly allowed the Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed, “Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstances.”
The Bench added that the question of grant of probation could be decided either way and in the event, the Court in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and proper; however, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the Court to record the reasons therefor.
AOR N. Rajaraman appeared for the Appellants/Accused while Senior Additional Advocate General (Sr. AAG) V. Krishnamurthy appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
The case was of the year 2008 in which there was a birthday of the girl child of the 2nd Appellant (husband) and the deceased (wife). A quarrel erupted over how to celebrate the child’s birthday with the deceased and the 1st Appellant (mother-in-law) having different ideas. The 1st Appellant had her way with the support of the 2nd Appellant and this infuriated the deceased who was only 19 years old, to set herself ablaze. Ultimately, she passed away because of the burn injuries sustained by her. In the dying declaration, she declared that the Appellants never demanded dowry.
This paved the way for the Appellants’ acquittal for the graver offence of dowry death. However, as per the dying declaration, it was alleged that the Appellants occasionally beat the deceased as well as hurled abuses towards her by calling her a mental patient. The Sessions Judge and the High Court returned finding of facts on appreciation of the evidence on record that the Appellants are guilty of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Being aggrieved by their conviction, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “What logically follows from a conjoint reading of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section 361, Cr. PC is that if Section 360, Cr. PC were not applicable in a particular case, there is no reason why Section 4 of the Probation Act would not be attracted.”
The Court was of the opinion that the Sessions Judge and the High Court by omitting to consider whether the Appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation, occasioned a failure of justice.
“Consequently, there was no worthy consideration as to whether the appellants could be extended the benefit of probation”, it added.
The Court further reiterated that the report of the probation officer referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Probation Act is a condition precedent and, therefore, must be complied with by the Trial Courts and the High Courts.
“Importantly, it has also been held that the courts may not be bound by such report. In such view of the matter, we need to make appropriate directions. … while maintaining the conviction recorded against the appellants but looking to the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to remit the matter to the High Court for limited consideration of the question of grant of probation to the appellants upon obtaining a report of the relevant probation officer. It is ordered accordingly”, it ordered.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal and directed that till the time the appropriate Bench of the High Court decides the question, the Order of the Supreme Court dated January 10, 2020, granting the Appellants exemption from surrendering will continue.
Cause Title- Chellamal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 540)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR N. Rajaraman
Respondent: Sr. AAG V. Krishnamurthy and AOR Sabarish Subramanian.
