Courts must consider reformative probation for minor offenses, especially following prolonged delays in criminal litigation.

The incident occurred on 10.11.1999 in Kalabuda village, where the informant was allegedly intercepted and abused by the accused persons armed with crowbars and bhujalis

When family members intervened, the accused allegedly pelted stones and brickbats, causing simple injuries to two persons and committing mischief by removing household articles

The Trial Court, via judgment dated 11.01.2010, acquitted the accused of charges under Section 148 IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act due to lack of seized weapons and procedural non-compliance in the investigation

However, the court convicted them under Sections 147, 323, and 337 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to six months of rigorous imprisonment

During the pendency of the appeals, several appellants died, leading to the abatement of proceedings against them

1. Whether the conviction under Sections 147, 323, and 337 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable despite minor discrepancies in witness testimonies and the absence of seized weapons

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the 26-year lapse since the occurrence and the nature of the injuries

The court applied Sections 147 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life), and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code

It strictly observed Rule 7 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which mandates investigation by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police

Regarding sentencing, the court relied on Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Section 361 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the reformative approach established in Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police [2025 INSC 540], which mandates that courts consider probation for less serious offenses and record special reasons for refusal

The court found that while prior enmity existed between the parties, which warrants a cautious approach, the presence of the informant’s family members as witnesses was natural since the attack occurred near their home

Although no deadly weapons were seized and independent witnesses were not examined, the medical evidence corroborated that simple injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects, consistent with stone-pelting

The court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the substratum of the prosecution's case—that an unlawful assembly engaged in rioting and caused hurt—remained intact

Regarding the sentence, the court noted that 26 years had passed since the 1999 incident, the injuries were simple, and the dispute was a village matter rather than a premeditated heinous crime

Applying the principles from Chellammal, the court determined that incarceration at this stage would serve no meaningful purpose and that a reformative approach was appropriate

The court ordered the release of the surviving appellants on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months, subject to executing a bond of Rs. 5,000 each with one surety

The appellants are required to maintain peace and good behavior under the supervision of a Probation Officer

The appeals were partly allowed