Courts must consider Section 4 probation for eligible offenders and give reasons when declining it.

The appellant was convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for assaulting the informant and sentenced to three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹200.

The trial court acquitted him of the charges under Sections 341, 294, 325, 307 and 506 IPC.

In appeal, counsel did not challenge the conviction on merits and sought relief only as to sentence, relying on the appellant’s 52 days in custody, the passage of time since the 2016 occurrence, his lack of criminal antecedents and the asserted settlement with the victim.

Whether the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, which the appellant did not challenge on merits, disclosed a basis for appellate interference

Whether, in light of the offence and the appellant’s circumstances, the custodial sentence should be replaced by release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Section 323 IPC criminalises voluntarily causing hurt; Section 34 IPC provides for joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, a court may release an eligible offender on probation of good conduct, and must consider that possibility where the statutory conditions apply; if it declines probation, it must record reasons.

The Supreme Court in Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 540, stated that consideration of probation is a judicial duty, though release on probation is not an offender’s right.

Section 5 of the Act permits an order for compensation, while Section 12 provides that a person dealt with under Section 4 shall not suffer statutory disqualifications attaching to the conviction, subject to the provision’s exception.

The Court found no reason to disturb the conviction: the injured witness’s account was consistent with his brother’s evidence and was corroborated by the medical evidence, notwithstanding the independent witnesses’ failure to support the prosecution.

It therefore upheld the trial court’s conclusion that hurt under Section 323 IPC was proved.

On sentence, the Court considered the relatively minor offence, the approximately ten-year interval since the occurrence, the 52 days already spent in custody, the absence of criminal antecedents and the appellant’s reported settled life.

Applying the principles in Chellammal, it concluded that probation was appropriate in place of further imprisonment.

Under Section 5, he was also directed to pay ₹5,000 compensation to the victim/informant within four weeks.

The Court noted that the protection under Section 12 would follow by operation of law, subject to the statutory exception.