Courts must consider Section 4 probation for eligible first-time offenders and give reasons for refusing it.

On 10 March 2021, following an objection by informant Satyanarayan Ratha to Appellant No. 1 allegedly peeping into a bathroom, a sudden quarrel occurred between neighbouring families.

The prosecution alleged that both appellants assaulted the informant and his brother with iron rods.

An FIR was lodged as Pattapur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2021, and a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341, 294, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

The trial court acquitted the appellants of Sections 341, 294 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but convicted them under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed a fine of ₹1,000 each, with one month’s simple imprisonment in default.

The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC required interference in appeal.

2. Whether, having regard to the simple nature of the injuries, the sudden neighbourhood quarrel, and the appellants’ personal circumstances, they were entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

3. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court should be modified by releasing the appellants on probation instead of enforcing the fine and default imprisonment.

The Court applied Section 323 IPC, which penalises voluntarily causing hurt, read with Section 34 IPC concerning acts done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

For sentencing, it applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which empowers the court to release an offender on probation of good conduct where the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Section 12 of the Act removes disqualifications attaching to a conviction when the benefit of the Act is extended.

The Court also referred to Section 361 CrPC, which requires special reasons where a court could have dealt with an accused under the Probation of Offenders Act but does not do so.

Relying on Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police , 2025 INSC 540, the Court held that although probation is not claimable as a right, the sentencing court has a mandatory duty to consider its applicability in an appropriate case and must record reasons if probation is refused.

The High Court declined to interfere with the conviction because the trial court had adequately found that the appellants voluntarily caused simple hurt in furtherance of their common intention.

However, the surviving conviction was only under Section 323/34 IPC; the prosecution had failed to establish the more serious allegation under Section 307 IPC, and the injuries were simple in nature.

The occurrence arose from a sudden, unplanned neighbourhood quarrel rather than a premeditated attack.

The Court further considered that Appellant No. 2 was approximately 66 years old, Appellant No. 1 was young, and both were first offenders earning their livelihood locally.

Applying the reformative purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act and the principles stated in Chellammal , the Court concluded that incarceration was unnecessary and that the appellants were suitable for release on probation.

The appellants’ conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld, but the sentence was modified.

Instead of undergoing the sentence imposed by the trial court, each appellant was directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for six months upon executing a bond of ₹5,000 with one surety for the like amount, undertaking to appear and receive sentence if called upon during that period, maintain peace and good behaviour, and remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer.