After brutal attack left victim severely disabled, Supreme Court overturns attackers’ release on probation

The victim was attacked by two accused with a cutting weapon and a firearm, sustaining grievous injuries with continuing effects on his mobility and use of his hands.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 308 IPC and sentenced them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

The High Court affirmed the conviction but released them under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, relying principally on the passage of time and the absence of prior convictions.

The victim’s brother, the first informant, appealed.

A Probation Officer’s report before the Supreme Court listed multiple criminal cases involving both accused and documented the victim’s continuing disabilities.

1. Whether the High Court was justified in releasing the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, having regard to the offence’s nature, the accused’s character and antecedents, and the absence of a Probation Officer’s report before it.

2. Whether the High Court’s order should be set aside and the accused required to surrender before the restored criminal appeal is heard.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 permits release on probation only after the court considers whether release is expedient in light of the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender.

Under Section 4(2), the court must take into consideration any Probation Officer’s report before making an order under Section 4(1).

The absence of a prior conviction, or the passage of time during which an accused remained on bail, does not by itself justify probation; the offender’s actual conduct and the seriousness of the offence remain material considerations.

The High Court relied on the accused’s asserted lack of prior convictions and the 22-year interval since the incident, but did not adequately account for the brutal attack, the victim’s grievous and continuing injuries, or the accuseds’ adverse criminal antecedents.

The Supreme Court considered the Probation Officer’s report, which recorded multiple cases involving both accused, and noted that the State had also brought their antecedents to the High Court’s attention.

In those circumstances, the High Court’s reliance on good conduct and delay was misplaced, and its order failed to give proper weight to the statutory considerations governing release under Section 4.

The Court also observed that the injuries appeared to fall within “grievous hurt” and that Section 307 IPC, rather than Section 308 IPC, appeared applicable, but stated that little could be done at that stage because the trial had proceeded on the Section 308 charge.

It directed the accused to surrender within two weeks; failing that, the trial court was to take immediate steps to apprehend them.

The criminal appeals were restored before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, which was directed to hear them only after the accused had been taken into custody.