1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has partly allowed a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, upholding the conviction but substantially modifying the sentence by granting him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The appellant, who had been sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment in 2003, urged the Court that he no longer sought to challenge his conviction and asked only for modification of the sentence. The Court accepted this limited prayer, noting the long passage of time (24 years since the incident), the appellant’s clean past record, and social reintegration reflected in a favourable Social Investigation Report.
The Court held that this was a fit case for probation and directed that the appellant be released on one-year probation of good conduct, subject to furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with a surety of like amount.
2. Facts
The prosecution case alleged that on 10 June 2001, around 11:00 pm, the appellant and his brother (now deceased), along with their father (also deceased), assaulted the victim near Rajeshwar Dham Mandir, Trilokpuri. The victim sustained grievous injuries caused by blunt objects—dandas and sarias.
Thirteen prosecution witnesses were examined. The victim (PW-5) gave a consistent account, medically corroborated by his MLC and the doctor who opined the injuries as grievous. An eye-witness (PW-6), the victim’s father, supported the version.
The trial court convicted both accused under Section 308/34 IPC in 2003 and imposed three years’ rigorous imprisonment. The appeal has remained pending for over two decades, during which appellant No. 2 passed away and proceedings against him abated.
Appellant No. 1 expressed remorse, accepted the conviction, and sought only probation in lieu of imprisonment.
3. Issues
- Whether the conviction under Section 308/34 IPC, based on corroborated medical and ocular testimony, required interference.
- Whether the appellant should be granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act despite the seriousness of the offence.
- Whether the long passage of time, clean antecedents, and favourable Social Investigation Report justified modification of the sentence.
4. Appellant’s arguments
The appellant did not press the appeal on merits, conceding the conviction. His counsel urged the Court to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, highlighting:
• The incident occurred 24 years ago.
• The appellant has already undergone 28 days of custody.
• He has a wife, two sons, and longstanding employment as a security guard.
• He bears a clean criminal record and maintains cordial relations with neighbours.
• He has suffered mentally, socially, and economically over two decades of trial.
It was argued that incarceration at this stage would cause disproportionate hardship and impede rehabilitation, defeating the reformative purpose of the Probation Act.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed modification of the sentence, contending that the trial court had imposed an appropriate sentence after weighing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It maintained that the offence involved grievous injuries with dangerous weapons, and no interference was warranted.
However, the State did not dispute the contents of the Social Investigation Report or the appellant’s clean record.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reviewed the legal framework governing probation and emphasised that the Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative statute aimed at the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into society without the stigma of incarceration.
Social Investigation Report
The report dated 22 May 2024 noted:
• Appellant is 50 years old, living in Delhi for 22 years.
• Works as a security guard and supports his family.
• No past criminal record.
• Maintains peaceful and cordial relations in society.
• High potential for reformation.
These findings directly aligned with the factors courts must consider before granting probation.
Supreme Court guidance
The Court relied on two important decisions:
Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2021) — Emphasised the purpose of the Probation Act: to avoid exposing offenders to the “deleterious effects of jail life” where reformation is possible.
Chellammal v. State (2025) — Laid down that courts have a mandatory duty to consider probation where the offender meets the statutory criteria, unless expressly excluded by law. Probation cannot be denied without recording proper reasons.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the appellant’s circumstances fit squarely within the framework of Section 4.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court’s reasoning draws from established jurisprudence:
Probation Act principles (Lakhvir Singh) — Promote rehabilitation, reduce incarceration where reformation is likely.
Mandatory consideration rule (Chellammal, 2025) — Courts must examine whether probation is appropriate; omission to consider is legally impermissible.
Sentencing proportionality and delay doctrine — Long lapse of time and minimal prior custody weigh heavily in favour of substituting imprisonment with reformative measures.
These precedents, when read together, create a strong legal foundation for modifying sentences even in serious offences where the offender demonstrates remorse and lacks criminal propensity.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found this case ideal for exercise of probationary jurisdiction:
- No challenge to conviction: Since the appellant confined his appeal to sentencing, the conviction stood affirmed without re-examination of evidence.
- Long delay & changed circumstances: The incident occurred in 2001; the conviction was in 2003; 22 years had passed. This fundamentally altered the sentencing landscape.
- Reintegration and social rootedness: He is employed, supporting a family, and has demonstrated social stability.
- Favourable Social Investigation Report: The Court heavily relied on professional evaluation indicating strong prospects of reformation.
- Minimal incarceration already undergone: The appellant served 28 days and already deposited the fine.
- Hardship and futility of incarceration now: Sending him to prison after 22 years would serve no meaningful penological purpose.
Balancing the gravity of the offence with humanistic considerations, the Court held that the appellant deserved probation.
9. Conclusion
The High Court:
• Upheld the conviction under Section 308/34 IPC;
• Modified the sentence by directing release on probation for one year;
• Ordered the appellant to furnish a ₹10,000 bond with surety, to keep peace, maintain good behaviour, and appear for sentencing if called upon;
• Maintained the fine already imposed;
• Directed communication to the trial court and jail authorities for compliance.
All pending applications were disposed of.
10. Implications
This judgment strengthens reformative sentencing principles by:
• Recognizing that prolonged litigation, social reintegration, and remorse may justify substituting imprisonment with probation.
• Affirming that courts must meaningfully consider probation where statutory factors support it.
• Signalling that incarceration decades after the offence—especially for individuals with stable, law-abiding lives—may amount to disproportionate hardship.
• Reinforcing the relevance of Social Investigation Reports in sentencing decisions.
The ruling may influence future appeals where older convictions resurface after long delays, especially in cases involving low or moderate gravity of harm.
Case Law References
Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2021) — Explained purpose of the Probation Act and highlighted reformation as the central sentencing goal.
Chellammal v. State (2025) — Held that courts have a mandatory duty to consider probation in eligible cases; denial must be reasoned.
FAQs
1. Can a person convicted under Section 308 IPC receive probation?
Yes. Courts may grant probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act if circumstances show remorse, no prior criminal history, and potential for reformation.
2. Does long delay between conviction and appeal impact sentencing?
Yes. A decades-long gap is a strong mitigating factor and can justify substituting imprisonment with probation.
3. What is the role of a Social Investigation Report?
It helps courts assess the offender’s background, behaviour, community ties, and reformation prospects before granting probation.
