Courts must consider Section 4 probation when its conditions apply and give reasons for refusing it.

The appellant was convicted under Sections 308, 323 and 504 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment and fines.

He did not challenge the conviction on appeal, seeking only release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The District Probation Officer reported that the appellant cultivated land, lived with his family, and had no adverse information against him.

The prosecution case was that he struck the complainant with a lathi, causing a head injury and fracture; the appellant claimed false implication arising from a dispute involving the complainant’s wife and stated that he had also been assaulted.

The appellant was stated to be a first offender, and no subsequent offence was reported during the more than ten years since his sentence.

Whether the appellant should be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, notwithstanding the conviction under Sections 308, 323 and 504 IPC.

Whether, given the passage of more than a decade without any reported subsequent offence, the appellant should be required to undergo a further period of probation.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empowers a court to release an offender on a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, instead of imposing punishment, where the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and, having regard to the circumstances—including the nature of the offence and the offender’s character—it is expedient to do so.

The court must consider the probation officer’s report, if any, and may impose supervision and related conditions.

Under Section 11 of the Act, the High Court may exercise this power in an appeal.

In Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court emphasized the duty to consider probation provisions as part of sentencing.

In Chellammal v. State, the Supreme Court held that courts must consider probation where Section 4 may apply and give reasons if probation is refused.

The court considered the appellant’s first-offender status, the absence of any reported subsequent criminal conduct, the probation report, and the nature of the allegations and offences.

It concluded that the offences and their maximum sentences did not preclude probation and that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Section 4.

Because more than ten years had elapsed—well beyond the Act’s maximum three-year probation period—and no further offence was reported, the court found no need to impose an additional probation period.

No further probation period was imposed.

The appellant was directed to deposit the fines within two weeks.