Section 4 probation granted to first-time offenders after two decades of post-offence good conduct.

On 29 March 2003, Satish Kumar alleged that Ishwar Mahto and deceased accused Naresh Mahto caught him and forced him to the ground, while Dilip Mahto assaulted his head with a pointed rod, causing a bleeding injury and temporary unconsciousness.

The prosecution attributed the occurrence to rivalry concerning a road contract. An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of the IPC; after investigation, charges were submitted under Sections 447, 341, 326 and 307 IPC. At trial, four prosecution witnesses were examined, including the injured informant, his mother, and the doctor who proved the injury. The appellants denied the occurrence and alleged false implication. The Trial Court convicted them under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal, accused Naresh Mahto died and his appeal abated; the surviving appellants pursued the appeal.

The Court applied Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means with the aid of common intention.

It also applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, under which a court may release an offender on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing the offender to immediate imprisonment, having regard to the nature of the offence, the offender’s character, antecedents, and the circumstances of the case.

The Court further considered the significance of the appellants being first-time offenders, their subsequent conduct, and the prolonged passage of time since the occurrence.

The Court found that the testimony of the injured informant, Satish Kumar, and his mother established the occurrence and that the medical evidence corroborated the head injury sustained by the informant. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 324/34 IPC was affirmed.

However, the Court noted that the appellants had no previous convictions, the occurrence had taken place in 2003, more than two decades had elapsed, and the Probation Officer’s report indicated that they were leading normal lives without involvement in further criminal activity. Since the Trial Court had rejected probation without recording special reasons, the High Court held that the circumstances justified extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The sentence was modified under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: instead of undergoing three years’ rigorous imprisonment, each appellant was directed to furnish a bond of ₹5,000 with one surety of like amount and maintain peace and good behaviour for one year. The bond was required to be furnished within two months; breach of its conditions would expose the appellants to the substantive sentence imposed by the Trial Court.