Supreme Court cancels probation granted to men convicted of a grievous armed assault

Two accused attacked a man with a sharp weapon and a gun, causing grievous cut and gunshot injuries. A trial court convicted them under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to five years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court affirmed the conviction but released the accused on a personal bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, reasoning that the incident was over twenty years old and the accused had no intervening convictions, without calling for a Probation Officer's report. The informant's brother appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court (J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.) held that Section 4 requires a court to consider the Probation Officer's report, where available, along with the nature of the offence and the offender's character, before extending the benefit of probation; the High Court had done neither. It noted that the injuries, as recorded in the medical evidence, were grievous hurt and that the State's counter-affidavit, filed years earlier, had already disclosed the accused's other criminal cases and a proposal to detain them preventively, facts the High Court ignored. Finding no justification for probation on these facts, the Court set aside the High Court's order, directed the two accused to surrender within two weeks, failing which they are to be apprehended, and restored their appeal to the Allahabad High Court to be heard only after they are back in custody.