Probation of Offenders Act | Supreme Court Says “No Discretion to Deny Probation Where Conditions Are Met”, Flags “Failure of Justice” in 498A Conviction
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan disposed of a criminal appeal challenging the sentencing under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court directed the High Court of Judicature at Madras to reconsider the grant of probation to the appellants, citing procedural oversight in the earlier orders.
The judgment, delivered on April 22, 2025, involved an appeal against a decision partly allowing a prior criminal appeal and maintaining convictions against the appellants, a husband and mother-in-law, for cruelty towards a woman. The bench observed that neither the trial court nor the High Court had considered the possibility of granting probation under applicable statutory provisions.
The matter originated from an incident on January 11, 2008, when a domestic dispute during a child’s birthday celebration led to the deceased—a 19-year-old woman—setting herself on fire. She succumbed to her injuries on January 16, 2008. Based on the investigation and trial proceedings in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2009 before the Mahila Court, Coimbatore, both appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC but convicted under Section 498A IPC.
The trial court imposed a sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment on the mother-in-law and two years on the husband. The High Court upheld the convictions but reduced the husband's sentence to one year, aligning it with that of the mother-in-law. Neither court considered probation under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
During the hearing, counsel for the appellants stated the absence of any prior criminal record and pointed to the 17 years of good conduct since the incident. It was also submitted that both had taken care of the deceased’s child, who is now an adult pursuing education. The counsel requested the court to enhance the fine in lieu of imprisonment; however, the Court clarified that Section 498A IPC mandates imprisonment along with a fine, not in the alternative.
The legal submissions cantered around whether the appellants could be considered for probation under Section 360 CrPC or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, especially in light of their age, conduct, and the time elapsed since the incident. The Court noted that both courts below failed to record reasons for not invoking these provisions, a requirement under Section 361 CrPC.
The Court referred to prior decisions, including State v. A. Parthiban and Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar, to underline the mandatory requirement to consider probation and to record reasons for not doing so. The Court also stated that the Probation of Offenders Act had been in force in Tamil Nadu since 1964, and thus, its applicability could not have been overlooked.
The Court recorded that "Section 498A IPC does not permit fine as an alternative to imprisonment. What, therefore, survives for consideration is the question of grant of probation, either under the CrPC or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958."
It was observed that "bare perusal of the order on sentence of the Sessions Judge and the impugned order of the High Court reveal that both the courts omitted to consider, and we assume it to be inadvertent, whether the appellants could be granted the benefit of probation."
The judgment discussed the applicability of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, noting its broader ambit as compared to Section 360 CrPC. The Court stated that "unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation."
Further, it was stated that "Section 361 CrPC engrafts a provision that in any case where the court could have dealt with an accused under the provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons therefor."
Quoting precedent, the Court referenced Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, noting that the Court must form an opinion that probation is expedient, and this is mandatory. In Rajbir v. State of Haryana, the Court had previously held that "the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender have to be taken into account."
The Court also observed that the failure of the courts below to seek a probation officer’s report, as mandated under Section 4(2) of the Probation Act, constituted a procedural lapse. It was stated that "the report of the probation officer... must be complied with by the trial courts and the high courts. Importantly, it has also been held that the courts may not be bound by such report."
Based on its findings, the Supreme Court held that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the lower courts’ failure to consider probation. The Court thus directed:
"While maintaining the conviction recorded against the appellants but looking to the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to remit the matter to the High Court for limited consideration of the question of grant of probation to the appellants upon obtaining a report of the relevant probation officer. It is ordered accordingly."
Until the High Court adjudicates the matter, the earlier exemption from surrender granted by the Supreme Court will continue.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. N. Rajaraman, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Senior Additional Advocate General; Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title: Chellammal and Another v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 540
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 368 of 2020]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan
[Read/Download order]
