Section 4 probation granted for simple hurt after 29 years, replacing custodial sentence.

The appellants were prosecuted in connection with an alleged incident dated 29 May 1996, in which they allegedly entered the informant’s house, assaulted him and his family members, threatened them to vacate their residence, and subsequently assaulted them again at village Purohitpur.

A cross-case arising from the same occurrence was also registered and both cases were tried together.

The prosecution examined eleven witnesses; however, the independent witnesses did not support its case, and the prosecution primarily relied on the evidence of the injured informant, his parents, the doctor and the Investigating Officer.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 452/323/506/34 IPC and imposed sentences of imprisonment and fine.

In appeal, the appellants challenged the reliability and consistency of the prosecution evidence and, alternatively, sought the benefit of probation on account of the long lapse of time, their age, lack of criminal antecedents and settled lives.

Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 452/34 and 506/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, despite material inconsistencies between the FIR, the testimony of the principal witnesses and the investigation evidence?

Whether the conviction under Section 323/34 IPC was supported by reliable ocular and medical evidence?

Whether the appellants should be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of undergoing the remaining sentence?

The Court applied Section 323 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, concerning voluntarily causing hurt in furtherance of common intention; Section 452 IPC concerning house-trespass after preparation for causing hurt, assault or wrongful restraint; and Section 506 IPC concerning punishment for criminal intimidation.

The Court held that conviction must rest on evidence that is consistent and sufficiently reliable, and that material contradictions in the prosecution narrative may render convictions for aggravated offences unsafe.

The Court further applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which permits release on probation where the offender is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Relying on Section 361 CrPC and Chellammal & Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 540, it held that the sentencing court has a statutory duty to consider probation and must record reasons if probation is refused.

Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act was applied to direct payment of compensation.

The Court also referred to Pathani Parida v. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra, 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469, and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu v. State of Orissa, 2007 (Supp-II) OLR 250.

The Court found substantial inconsistencies regarding the manner, time and place of the alleged occurrence.

The FIR described a concerted entry into the informant’s house followed by a later assault at Purohitpur, whereas P.W.7 narrated an assault on the village road in the morning; the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 11 differed materially from P.W.7’s version.

The Investigating Officer’s account of what P.W.1 had stated during investigation further indicated a different version involving injured persons from both groups and the presence of the appellants in circumstances inconsistent with the prosecution narrative.

Although the medical evidence established that P.Ws.7 and 8 had sustained simple injuries, it did not reliably corroborate the alleged house-trespass, preparation for assault or criminal intimidation.

Accordingly, the Court held that the convictions under Sections 452/34 and 506/34 IPC were not the result of a proper appreciation of the evidence and could not be sustained.

However, the fact of a physical altercation and the simple injuries suffered by the informant and another injured person were supported by the ocular, medical and investigative evidence; the conviction under Section 323/34 IPC was therefore affirmed.

Considering that the occurrence was nearly thirty years old, the appellants’ advanced ages, the period of custody already undergone, absence of criminal antecedents and their settled lives, the Court held that the case warranted release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The convictions under Sections 452/34 and 506/34 IPC were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of those charges.

The conviction under Section 323/34 IPC was affirmed, but the custodial sentence was substituted by release under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for one year.

Each appellant was directed to execute a bond of ₹5,000 with one surety for the like amount, maintain peace and good behaviour, appear and receive sentence if called upon, and remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer.

Each appellant was further directed to pay ₹10,000 as compensation to the injured persons under Section 5 of the Act within two months.

The appointed Amicus Curiae was awarded an honorarium of ₹7,500.