Court's power to release a convict after due admonition under Section 360 Cr.P.C. remains valid exercise of judicial discretion.

The appellant/complainant (a member of the Scheduled Caste community) filed a complaint alleging that on September 5, 2020, three individuals (Respondents 2–4) entered his field, used casteist slurs, and assaulted him, including stripping him and blackening his face.

It was further alleged that Respondent No. 4 (Dinesh Yadav) molested the appellant's wife by tearing her blouse.

The Trial Court acquitted Respondents 2 and 3 of all charges but convicted Respondent 4 (Dinesh Yadav) solely under Section 354 of the IPC, while acquitting him of charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Instead of a prison sentence, the Trial Court released Respondent 4 after due admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The appellant challenged this acquittal and the nature of the sentence.

1. Whether the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting the benefit of probation/admonition for a conviction under Section 354 IPC in light of the statutory framework.

2. Whether the acquittal of the respondents under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was based on a proper evaluation of evidence.

Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which empowers the court to release a convict on probation of good conduct or after due admonition if they are a first offender and the offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Section 360(3) permits release after admonition for offences under the IPC punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment or fine-only.

The Court also acknowledged the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as a parallel beneficial legislation.

The High Court examined the evidence of the four prosecution witnesses, noting significant gaps: the informant (PW-1) admitted to a pre-existing land dispute with the accused and produced no medical evidence or photographs of the alleged humiliation; the neighbors (PW-2 and PW-3) were either hearsay witnesses or reached the spot after the event.

Regarding the sentencing of Respondent No. 4, the Court held that the "nomenclature" of the Act used by the Trial Court (Probation of Offenders Act vs. Cr.P.C.) was irrelevant as long as the judicial power existed.

The Court found that the Trial Court had properly exercised its discretion under Section 360 Cr.P.C., taking into account that the convict was a first-time offender and considering the mitigating circumstances of the case.

The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, holding that the acquittal of Respondents 2 and 3 and the conviction of Respondent 4 without a custodial sentence were legally sound, and the acquittal appeal was dismissed.