Long passage of time and subsequent good conduct justified release on probation despite upheld conviction.

On 15 June 2002, the petitioner allegedly assaulted Khetrabasi Sahoo (P.W.2) on the neck with an axe during a village altercation, causing a bleeding injury. The injured was taken to hospital, where he narrated the occurrence to his wife, Jostna Sahoo (P.W.1). An FIR was thereafter lodged, investigation was completed, and a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 307/34 of the IPC

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the informant, injured witness, occurrence witnesses, doctor, and investigating officer; the injury report and seizure lists were also produced

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. On appeal, the conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000

The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., contending that the prosecution evidence consisted principally of interested witnesses and that he deserved release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 IPC was unsustainable because the prosecution had not examined independent witnesses and had relied substantially on the injured witness and his family members?

Whether, notwithstanding the conviction, the petitioner should be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in view of the lapse of approximately two decades and the absence of any subsequent criminal conduct?

The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., under which interference is warranted where the subordinate courts’ findings suffer from illegality, material irregularity, or perversity. It applied Section 324 IPC concerning voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

The Court held that the testimony of an injured witness and related witnesses may be relied upon where it is cogent and consistent; the mere non-examination of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit the prosecution case

For sentencing, the Court applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which permits release on probation upon the court’s consideration of the circumstances of the offence and the offender. It also relied on Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, for the principle that the court must give reasons when declining to extend the benefit of probation

The Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court. The injured witness’s evidence, the statements of the other witnesses, and the seizure material sufficiently supported the prosecution case.

The petitioner had allegedly been apprehended while attempting to flee, and therefore the absence of independent witnesses did not materially weaken the prosecution evidence

Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the conviction under Section 324 IPC

However, while considering the sentence, the Court noted that the occurrence had taken place on 15 June 2002, nearly two decades had elapsed, and there was no material showing that the petitioner had committed any further offence during that period.

Considering these circumstances and the nature of the offence, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act

However, the petitioner was directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on conditions to be determined by the Trial Court.

The fine imposed by the Appellate Court was set aside, and the Criminal Revision was accordingly disposed of