Courts must consider Section 4 probation for eligible offenders and record reasons for refusal.

The appellant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 78, 79, 296, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, following allegations that he repeatedly loitered near a Class X student’s school route, made objectionable gestures, and interfered with her movement

The trial court found material improvements in several allegations, acquitted him of the charged offences, but convicted him under Sections 126(2) and 131 BNS as lesser offences under Section 245 BNSS.

It imposed concurrent sentences of ten days’ simple imprisonment and two months’ rigorous imprisonment, with fines.

The appellant challenged the judgment and sentence.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the convictions and considered whether probation was appropriate.

1. Whether the trial court properly convicted the appellant of the lesser offences under Sections 126(2) and 131 BNS, despite acquitting him of the charged offences.

2. Whether the appellant should receive the benefit of release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Section 245 BNSS permits conviction for a minor offence where the proved facts establish that offence, although the accused was charged with a greater offence.

Sections 126(2) and 131 BNS concern the offences for which the trial court convicted the appellant.

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; the court must consider probation where applicable and give reasons if it declines to grant it.

The High Court relied on Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 540, for that principle.

The High Court upheld the trial court’s assessment that the victim’s testimony contained material improvements concerning several allegations, while the consistent evidence that the appellant loitered near her school route and intercepted her movement supported the lesser offences.

It therefore found the convictions under Sections 126(2) and 131 BNS legally sound and supported by the evidence.

On sentence, the Court considered the appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, first-offender status, and the short custodial terms, concluding that imprisonment would not substantially advance justice.

Applying Section 4 and Chellammal, it granted probation.

The High Court maintained the convictions under Sections 126(2) and 131 BNS but released the appellant on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for six months.

He was directed to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000, with one surety for the like amount, within one month; remain of good behaviour and keep the peace; appear to receive sentence if called upon during the probation period; and remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer.