Benefit of Probation Must Be Considered Where Statutorily Permissible: Supreme Court Flags Omission as Legal Error in Cruelty Conviction Under Section 498A IPC

Courts Cannot Ignore Reformation Where the Law Provides for It – In a significant ruling that reaffirms the importance of reformative justice, the Supreme Court of India on April 22, 2025, in Chellammal & Another v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 368 of 2020), held that once an offender is convicted of an offence eligible for probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it is mandatory for courts to consider granting such benefit before sentencing. The Court found that both the Sessions Court and the Madras High Court had failed to discharge this statutory duty while convicting a husband and mother-in-law under Section 498A IPC for cruelty to the deceased daughter-in-law.
The Court declared, “When the law casts a mandatory duty to consider probation, courts cannot bypass this obligation. Such omission is not a procedural lapse—it is a failure of justice.”

The appellants, the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, were convicted by the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, in 2012 under Section 498A IPC for subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The deceased, who was 19 years old at the time, set herself ablaze on January 11, 2008, and succumbed to her injuries five days later. The catalyst was a quarrel over her child’s birthday celebration.
The trial court acquitted both accused of the more serious charge under Section 304B IPC (dowry death) based on the deceased’s dying declaration, which stated that there was no dowry demand. However, she alleged occasional physical abuse and verbal insults, including being called a “mental patient.”
Both courts below imposed rigorous imprisonment, without considering probation despite no prior criminal antecedents and more than a decade of clean conduct.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Probation and Judicial Duty
The Court highlighted that under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, read with Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a judge must consider probation in eligible cases and record reasons if it is denied. The appellants, having no criminal background and having spent 17 years since the incident without reoffending, were textbook candidates for such benefit.

The Court criticized the lower courts for their silence: “The Sessions Judge and the High Court by omitting to consider whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of probation occasioned a failure of justice.”

It added that the benefit of probation cannot be sought as a matter of right, but when the circumstances prescribed in law are fulfilled, the court’s duty to consider it is mandatory, not discretionary.
Citing Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Gulzar v. State of M.P., the Court reinforced that “Probation is not charity—it is part of a statutorily structured sentencing discretion that courts must apply with due regard.”

Relevance of Probation Act in Tamil Nadu
Responding to a crucial query, the Court confirmed that the Probation of Offenders Act had been enforced in Tamil Nadu since 1964. Thus, reliance on Section 360 CrPC was irrelevant, and only the Probation Act applied. 

The Court observed: “Two statutes with such significant differences cannot co-exist in the same jurisdiction. Once the Probation Act applies, Section 360 CrPC ceases to be relevant in that State.”
This clarification settled the confusion often faced by courts regarding dual application of Section 360 CrPC and the Probation Act.

Remand for Reconsideration with Probation Officer's Report
Importantly, the Court did not directly grant probation but remitted the matter to the High Court with clear directions to reconsider the sentence after obtaining a report from the Probation Officer:
“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.”
Until this reconsideration, the Supreme Court’s prior order exempting the appellants from surrender would continue to operate.

The judgment marks a reaffirmation of the reformative purpose behind sentencing law. It sends a strong message that courts must not approach sentencing mechanically, especially in cases involving first-time offenders who demonstrate a potential for rehabilitation.
“The increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders is what is sought to be subserved,” the Court concluded, directing that the law must not overlook the human potential for change.

Date of Decision:  April 22, 2025