Courts must consider and give reasons for denying probation or Section 360 CrPC benefit.

On 26 January 2002, Nipen Karmakar was allegedly obstructed and assaulted with a bamboo stick by Rafik Biswas and Nirmalendu Biswas, causing injuries, including a fracture. A case was registered at Chapra Police Station under Sections 341/325/34 of the IPC.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the injured witness, the doctor, and police personnel.

The Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000, with one month’s rigorous imprisonment in default. The Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and sentence in appeal.

In revision, the petitioner challenged the evidentiary findings and contended that the courts below had failed to consider probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or release under Sections 360 and 361 of the CrPC, despite the absence of criminal antecedents and the lapse of more than two decades.

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 325 of the IPC disclosed any perversity, jurisdictional error, or other legal defect warranting interference in revision.

Whether the courts below failed to discharge their mandatory duty to consider and give reasons for granting or refusing the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or Sections 360 and 361 of the CrPC.

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s sentence should be altered to release on a bond for good behaviour.

The Court applied the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC, under which a revisional court may correct patent defects, jurisdictional errors, or errors of law but cannot ordinarily reappreciate evidence as an appellate court; this principle was drawn from Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204.

It further relied on Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330, for the rule that concurrent factual findings should not be reassessed in revision unless they are totally perverse.

Sections 360 and 361 of the CrPC require the court to consider release on probation in appropriate cases and to record reasons where such benefit is withheld; this mandatory duty was emphasised in Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2009) 9 SCC 245, and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (2001) 10 SCC 477.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provides a wider statutory basis for releasing eligible offenders on probation, including offenders above 21 years of age convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment below seven years, but probation is not claimable as an absolute right; the court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and the offender’s circumstances.

The Court also relied on Chellammal v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, concerning the duty to consider and give reasons on probation, and Jagabandhu Biswas v. State of West Bengal, CRA 662 of 2018, regarding probationary relief in a Section 325 IPC case.

The Court found no patent defect, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the concurrent conviction. The injured witness had testified regarding the assault and the medical evidence supported the existence of a fracture; minor discrepancies and the hostility of another witness did not render the injured witness’s evidence unreliable.

Accordingly, the revisional court declined to interfere with the finding of guilt.

However, the Magistrate had not considered the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 of the CrPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and the appellate court had merely stated, without cogent reasons, that the case was not fit for release on good conduct.

In view of the one-year sentence, the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents, the substantial lapse of time, and the absence of material indicating misuse of liberty, the Court held that the mandatory sentencing and probationary considerations had not been properly addressed.

The sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine was altered: the petitioner was directed to furnish a good-behaviour bond of ₹5,000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar, Nadia, and to appear once a month before that court for six months.

The Officer-in-Charge was directed to submit periodic reports regarding the petitioner’s conduct.

All connected applications were disposed of and the revisional application was partly allowed.