Courts must consider probation for eligible offenders and give reasons for refusing it.

On 12 May 2022, the ten-year-old son of the informant died after coming into contact with a live electric wire hanging at a low height.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants had used the wire to draw electricity unlawfully to their house and had left it in a dangerous position despite warnings from local residents.

The appellants were charged under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The trial court convicted them under Sections 304-A read with Section 34 IPC and 135(1) of the Electricity Act, sentencing each to imprisonment and fines.

In appeal, counsel confined submissions to sentence; the High Court nevertheless considered the evidence and upheld the convictions.

Whether the evidence established the appellants’ guilt under Section 304-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Whether, having regard to the circumstances, antecedents and period since the occurrence, the appellants should receive probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of serving their custodial sentences.

Section 304-A IPC penalises causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide; Section 34 IPC attributes joint liability where a criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention. Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 criminalises dishonest tapping or unauthorised connection to an electricity line or service.

Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, a court may release an eligible offender on probation where the statutory conditions are met; Chellammal v. State, 2025 INSC 540, holds that the court must consider probation where applicable and give reasons if it declines to grant it.

Section 5 of the Probation Act permits an order for compensation.

The High Court found that the consistent evidence of the locality witnesses and the informant established that the appellants had used the live wire to supply electricity to their house and left it hanging at a dangerous height. The medical evidence established death by electrocution, and the absence of technical evidence did not undermine the otherwise cogent oral evidence; the convictions therefore warranted no interference.

On sentence, the Court considered the nature of the offences, the passage of more than four years since the occurrence, the appellants’ period in custody, lack of criminal antecedents and reported settled lives. Applying the duty to consider probation under Chellammal, it concluded that probation was appropriate.

Each appellant was directed to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety for the like amount, maintain peace and good behaviour, and remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer during that period. Under Section 5, each appellant was also ordered to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the deceased’s parents within four weeks.