What is the scope of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empowers the court to release an offender on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, provided the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The court must consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender. The benefit can be extended even at the appellate stage, as seen in this judgment.

Can the benefit of probation be extended to offenders above 21 years of age?

Yes, the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to offenders above 21 years of age. Unlike Section 3, which imposes an injunction on courts for offenders below 21 years, Section 4 grants absolute discretion to the court to release offenders above 21 years on probation, considering the circumstances of the case. The Allahabad High Court exercised this discretion in favor of the elderly appellants in this case.

What conditions can be imposed under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act?

Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the court may impose the following conditions: 1. The offender must execute a personal bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a specified period (not exceeding three years). 2. The offender must keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the probation period. 3. The court may pass a supervision order directing the offender to remain under the supervision of a probation officer for a specified period (not less than one year). 4. The court may impose additional conditions, such as residence requirements or abstention from intoxicants, to prevent repetition of the offence. 5. Invoking Section 5, the court may direct the offender to pay compensation for loss or injury caused to the victim and costs of the proceedings.

What factors did the Allahabad High Court consider while extending the benefit of probation?

The Allahabad High Court considered the following factors while extending the benefit of probation to the appellants: 1. Advanced Age: The surviving appellants were over 60 and 70 years old. 2. Extraordinary Delay: The appeal had remained pending for over four decades, during which the appellants remained on bail without misusing their liberty. 3. Nature of Injuries: Out of the numerous injuries, only two were grievous, while the rest were simple. 4. Death of Co-Accused: Four of the six original appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Absence of Criminal Antecedents: There was no evidence of any previous conviction or habitual criminality. 6. Genesis of the Incident: The incident arose from a property dispute between families and was not premeditated.

What happens if the conditions of probation are breached?

If the conditions of probation imposed under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are breached, the offender shall be liable to undergo the original sentence awarded by the trial court. In this case, the Allahabad High Court explicitly stated that in the event of breach of any of the conditions, the appellants would be required to serve the seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence originally awarded.

Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act | 40-Year Delay Justifies Sentence Modification for Elderly Offenders : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in a four-decade-old criminal appeal, affirming the conviction of two surviving appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, and 149 IPC but modifying their sentence under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court's decision underscores the discretionary power of courts to release offenders on probation, particularly in cases involving elderly appellants with no criminal antecedents, where the incident arose from a property dispute and the appeal remained pending for an extraordinary duration.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case originates from a long-standing property dispute between two families in village Gaura Churiyara, District Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, Chandra Pal, and his family members were involved in a civil litigation with Pittan Ram and his family over residential land. The litigation was decided in favor of Ram Kishun, Chandra Pal's brother, on 23 March 1980, leading to enmity between the parties.

Key Facts

15 June 1980: At approximately 9:00 a.m., Pittan Ram, Girish Chandra, Swani, Kallu, Jaggu, Govardhan, and Shiv Mohan demolished a wall constructed by Chandra Pal on disputed abadi land and began collecting the bricks for their own use.
Upon objection by Chandra Pal, Ram Swaroop, Ram Pyare, Ram Kishun, and Smt. Jhandi alias Golani, the accused assaulted them. Witnesses Munna and Ram Pratap arrived at the scene but were also assaulted.
The accused were armed with weapons: Shiv Mohan with a ballam (spear), Pittan Ram with a fawda (spade), Girish Chandra and Swani with kulhadi (axes), and the remaining accused with lathis (sticks).
As a result of the assault, six persons - Chandra Pal, Ram Swaroop, Ram Kishun, Ram Pratap, Jhandi alias Golani, and Ram Pyare - sustained injuries.
Chandra Pal lodged a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) at the police station at 11:00 a.m. on the same day. Constable Moharrir Suresh Chandra Dubey prepared the Check FIR (Exhibit Ka-2) and the General Diary entry (Exhibit Ka-3).

Procedural History

15 June 1980: Written report lodged by Chandra Pal at Police Station Hussainganj. Check FIR and General Diary entry prepared.
07 July 1984: Charges framed against the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, and 149 IPC by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.
22 January 1984: Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants. Shiv Mohan, Kallu, Jaggu, and Govardhan were awarded one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC, while Girish Chandra and Swani were awarded two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC. All appellants were sentenced to one year under Section 323/149 IPC, two years under Section 325/149 IPC, two years under Section 324/149 IPC, and seven years under Section 326/149 IPC.
1985: Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1985 filed before the Allahabad High Court.
05 May 2026: Appeal reserved.
13 July 2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Santosh Rai, J.

Relief Sought

The appellants sought to set aside the trial court's judgment and order dated 22 January 1984, arguing that the conviction was against the weight of evidence and the sentence was unduly severe. They prayed for leniency, citing their advanced age, the pendency of the appeal for over four decades, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether, in light of the extraordinary delay in the disposal of the appeal, the advanced age of the surviving appellants, the nature of the injuries, and the absence of criminal antecedents, the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could be extended to the appellants, thereby modifying their sentence.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellants

The appellants argued that the First Information Report and the statements of the injured witnesses did not assign any specific or distinct role to any of the appellants, and only general allegations were made.
A cross-case was registered against the informant side, indicating that both parties sustained injuries during the occurrence.
Out of the six appellants, four had passed away during the pendency of the appeal, leaving only Shiv Mohan (aged over 70 years) and Girish Chandra (aged over 60 years) alive.
The incident arose from a family property dispute, and the appellants had remained on bail throughout the trial without misusing their liberty.
It was prayed that the benefit of probation be extended to the surviving appellants.

For the Respondent/State

The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) contended that the appellants committed the offences in prosecution of their common object and caused grievous injuries to the victims, including a fracture of the parietal bone.
Appellant Shiv Mohan used a ballam (spear) during the commission of the offence, justifying the trial court's conviction and sentence.
The impugned judgment warranted no interference.

The Court's Analysis

The Court meticulously examined the evidence on record, including the testimony of the injured witnesses P.W.-1 Chandra Pal and P.W.-2 Ram Pratap, the medical evidence of P.W.-4 Dr. V.K. Srivastava, and the First Information Report. The Court observed that the testimony of the injured witnesses was consistent on the material particulars of the occurrence, including the time, place, manner of assault, and the role and weapons attributed to each accused. The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case, with two grievous injuries (fractures) recorded among the six injured persons.

"The oral testimony of the injured witnesses P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 finds corroboration in the medical evidence of P.W.-4, who examined the six injured persons on the date of the occurrence and found, in aggregate, two grievous injuries attributable to sharp/blunt-force impact resulting in fractures, namely the fracture of the parietal bone of Ram Kishun and the fracture of the lower one-third of the shaft of the humerus of Jhandi alias Golani, while the remaining injuries recorded on the injured persons were simple in nature."

The Court rejected the appellants' plea of exceeding the right of private defence, noting that it was neither specifically taken nor substantiated before the trial court. The weapon-wise role assigned to each accused, the number of assailants, and the nature and distribution of injuries were inconsistent with a purely defensive reaction.

The Court then turned to the question of sentence, considering the following circumstances:

The occurrence dated back to 1980, and the appeal had remained pending since 1985, during which the appellants had remained on bail without misusing their liberty.
Out of the numerous injuries, only two were grievous in nature, while the remaining injuries were simple.
Four of the six original appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal without ever undergoing the sentence awarded by the trial court.
There was no allegation or proof of any previous conviction or criminal antecedent against the surviving appellants.
The incident arose from a property dispute between the families and was not premeditated.

The Court relied on precedents such as Sitaram Paswan and Another vs. State of Bihar, Lakhanlal alias Lakhan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Mohd. Hashim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, and Chellammal and Another vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police to underscore the discretionary power of courts under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court emphasized that the benefit of probation could be extended even at the appellate stage, considering the nature of the offence, the character of the offender, and the overall circumstances of the case.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court partly allowed the appeal with the following modifications:

The conviction of appellant Shiv Mohan under Sections 147, 323, 325, 324, 326, and 149 IPC and appellant Girish Chandra under Sections 148, 323, 325, 324, 326, and 149 IPC was affirmed.
The sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment was set aside.
The appellants were released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, subject to the following conditions:
1. The appellants shall execute a fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each, with one surety of the like amount, for a period of one year, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour and not involve in any criminal activity.
2. Invoking Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the appellants shall pay compensation of Rs. 40,000 (Rupees Forty Thousand) each (totaling Rs. 80,000), to be distributed equally among the injured persons or their legal representatives within one month from the date of the judgment.
3. In the event of breach of any of the conditions, the appellants shall be liable to undergo the original sentence awarded by the trial court.
The appellants were directed to appear before the trial court within one month to furnish the requisite bonds. In case of default, the trial court was empowered to proceed in accordance with law, including issuance of coercive process.
The bail bonds and sureties furnished earlier during the trial/appeal stood discharged.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Discretionary Power Under Probation of Offenders Act

Courts have wide discretion under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release offenders on probation, considering the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender.
The benefit of probation can be extended even at the appellate stage, particularly in cases involving elderly offenders with no criminal antecedents and where the incident arose from a property dispute or sudden flare-up.
The Court must form an opinion that it is expedient to release the offender on probation, taking into account factors such as the gravity of the offence, the impact on the victim, and the potential for reformation.

Mitigating Circumstances for Sentence Modification

Extraordinary Delay: The pendency of an appeal for over four decades, during which the appellants remained on bail without misusing their liberty, is a significant mitigating factor.
Nature of Injuries: Where the injuries are predominantly simple, with only a few grievous injuries, courts may consider modifying the sentence.
Death of Co-Accused: The death of co-accused during the pendency of the appeal underscores the need for a lenient approach, particularly when the surviving appellants have no criminal antecedents.
Property Disputes: Incidents arising from property disputes, especially between family members, may be viewed as less premeditated and more likely to warrant probation.

Conditions for Probation

Personal Bond and Surety: Offenders released on probation must execute a personal bond with sureties, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour.
Compensation: Courts may invoke Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to direct payment of compensation to the victims or their legal representatives.
Compliance: Strict compliance with the conditions of probation is mandatory, failing which the offender may be required to undergo the original sentence.

Practitioners should note that while the benefit of probation is discretionary, courts are inclined to extend it in cases involving elderly offenders, long pendency of appeals, and incidents arising from property disputes, provided the offenders have no criminal antecedents and show potential for reformation.

Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act | 40-Year Delay Justifies Sentence Modification for Elderly Offenders : Allahabad HC