Section 4 probation may replace imprisonment for a first-time offender convicted under IPC Section 326.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous injuries to a co-worker with a rod and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. He was acquitted of the charges under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence

In revision, the petitioner did not press the challenge on merits and sought release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, relying on the passage of time, his status as a first offender and the absence of subsequent criminal antecedents

The State opposed interference with the conviction but accepted that probation could be considered subject to statutory conditions

Whether the petitioner, convicted under Section 326 IPC, could be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Whether the circumstances of the case justified modifying the custodial sentence while maintaining the conviction

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 permits a court to release a person found guilty of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life on probation of good conduct, instead of sentencing the person at once. The discretion must be exercised having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the offender’s character; the court must also be satisfied as to the offender’s or surety’s fixed place of abode or regular occupation.

Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab recognises the Act’s rehabilitative purpose, while Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana emphasises the sentencing court’s duty to consider relevant personal and social circumstances.

Sitaram Paswan v. State of Bihar confirms that probation is discretionary and may be considered at the appellate or revisional stage, with due regard to the offence’s gravity and its impact on the victim. The Court also referred to Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P. and other authorities concerning the application of probation.

Section 326 IPC was not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, so Section 4 was available for consideration.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence: the petitioner had caused grievous injuries and the victim was treated as an inpatient. It nevertheless considered that the incident occurred in 2014, the petitioner had no prior conviction, and no criminal antecedents between the parties had been reported in the intervening period. In light of those circumstances and the Act’s rehabilitative purpose, the Court found probation appropriate, without disturbing the conviction.

The bond and sureties were to be filed before the District Probation Officer within three months; breach of the conditions would require the petitioner to undergo the original sentence.