Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that when conditions under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act are met, the court has a mandatory duty to consider probation and cannot disregard its applicability. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Chellammal and Another v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police (2025). 

What was the Background of Chellammal and Another v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police (2025) Case? 

• The appellants in this case, a mother-in-law and her son, were convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for subjecting the deceased (the son's wife) to cruelty.  
• The incident occurred on January 11, 2008, when a quarrel erupted regarding the celebration of their daughter's birthday.  
• Different ideas about how to celebrate led to an argument, and the deceased, who was 19 years old, set herself ablaze in distress. She ultimately succumbed to her burn injuries on January 16, 2008. 
• In her dying declaration, the deceased truthfully stated that the appellants never demanded dowry, which led to their acquittal for the more serious offence of dowry death under Section 304-B.  
• However, there were allegations in her dying declaration that the appellants occasionally beat her and verbally abused her by calling her a mental patient. 
• The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, convicted both appellants under Section 498A IPC, sentencing the mother-in-law to one year's rigorous imprisonment and the son to two years' rigorous imprisonment, along with fines. 
• The High Court maintained the conviction and the mother-in-law's sentence but reduced the son's sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment. 
• The appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking probation instead of imprisonment, noting that 17 years had passed since the incident, they had no prior criminal record, had not committed any crime since, and had properly cared for the daughter of the deceased, who was now 19 years old and pursuing her education. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that when the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act are attracted, courts have a mandatory duty to consider whether the offender deserves to be released on probation, rather than being sentenced to imprisonment. 
• The Court noted that both the Sessions Judge and the High Court had failed to consider whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which constituted a failure of justice. 
• The Court emphasized that while an offender cannot claim probation as a matter of right, the courts must consider granting probation in appropriate cases to further the reformative and rehabilitative objectives of the Probation of Offenders Act. 
• The Court held that Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has wider application than Section 360 of the CrPC, as it enables courts to exercise discretion in any case where the offender has committed an offence punishable with any sentence other than death or life imprisonment. 
• The Court clarified that before granting probation, obtaining a report from the probation officer is mandatory, though courts are not bound by such reports when making their final determination. 
• The Court maintained the conviction but remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration of probation upon obtaining a report from the relevant probation officer. 

What is Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act? 

• Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act primarily deals with the power of courts to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct rather than imposing immediate punishment. 
• It applies to any person found guilty of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 
• The court must form an opinion that, considering the circumstances of the case (including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender), it is expedient to release the offender on probation of good conduct. 
• The court may direct the offender to be released on entering into a bond (with or without sureties) to appear and receive sentence when called upon within a period not exceeding three years. 
• During this probation period, the offender must keep the peace and be of good behavior. 
• The court can only grant such release if satisfied that the offender or surety has a fixed place of residence or regular occupation within the court's jurisdiction. 
• Before making any probation order, the court must consider the report of the probation officer related to the case. 
• The court may additionally pass a supervision order requiring the offender to remain under a probation officer's supervision for at least one year. 
• When issuing a supervision order, the court can impose conditions regarding residence, abstention from intoxicants, or other matters to prevent reoffending. 
• The court must explain the terms and conditions to the offender and provide copies of the supervision order to all parties involved.