Convictions Under S.498A Maintained; Matter Remitted to High Court to Consider Probation After Probation Officer Report

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard a criminal appeal by special leave challenging a Madras High Court order that had partly allowed the appellants’ criminal appeal but maintained their convictions under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. The appeal raised, inter alia, whether the courts below had considered the applicability of release on probation under Section 360, CrPC or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and whether the Probation Act had been brought into force in Tamil Nadu.

The Court maintained the convictions under Section 498A, IPC, but remitted the matter to the High Court for limited consideration of the question of grant of probation to the appellants after obtaining the report of the relevant probation officer. The Court noted that “fine is not an alternative to imprisonment” under Section 498A and emphasised the mandatory nature of consideration of probation where the statutory criteria applied. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of probation could be decided either way. In the event, the court in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the court to record the reasons therefor.” The Supreme Court directed that the High Court obtain a probation officer’s report and decide the question afresh; meanwhile the appellants’ exemption from surrender granted on January 10, 2020, would continue.

Background The case arose from an incident on 11 January 2008 when the deceased, aged 19, set herself ablaze after a quarrel relating to her child’s birthday; she succumbed to burn injuries on 16 January 2008. The dying declaration recorded that no dowry demand had been made, which led to the appellants’ acquittal under Section 304-B, IPC, but the declaration also contained allegations that the appellants occasionally beat her and hurled abuses, including calling her a “mental patient”. The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, acquitted on dowry death but convicted both appellants under Section 498A, sentencing the first appellant to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and the second to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines. The Madras High Court maintained the convictions and reduced the second appellant’s sentence to one year’s rigorous imprisonment.

Seventeen years elapsed since the incident; the appellants had no prior criminal record and had not been imprisoned. They had cared for the child of the deceased, who was now an adult. Counsel for the appellants urged the Court to set aside imprisonment on account of these mitigating circumstances, but the Court observed that under Section 498A “fine is not an alternative to imprisonment.” The central legal question became whether, and to what extent, the courts were required to consider beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360, CrPC. The Supreme Court reviewed precedents including Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar, Gulzar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi), and recent authorities and concluded that where Section 4(1) of the Probation Act applied, courts had a mandatory duty to consider probation and, if they did not grant it, to record special reasons under Section 361, CrPC. The Court found that both the trial court and the High Court had omitted to consider probation and that this omission occasioned a failure of justice. The Court therefore maintained the convictions but remitted the case to the High Court for a limited rehearing on the question of probation upon obtaining the probation officer’s report; pending that decision, the appellants’ interim exemption from surrender was continued. The appeal was disposed of on those terms.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 368 of 2020) Case Title: Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. N. Rajaraman, Advocate (learned counsel for the appellants) For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel, Additional Advocate General, Tamil Nadu