Denial of probation under the P.O. Act must be supported by evidence of criminal proclivity; mere age does not justify the refusal.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Patnagarh in Criminal Appeal No.05/2025, affirming the order of conviction dated 11.08.2025 of the Petitioner passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Patnagarh, Balangir in G.R. Case No.290 of 2004 under Section 417 IPC and sentencing the Petitioner to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only), while acquitting him of the charges under Sections 493 and 506 .

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.09.2004 the informant, a poor and fatherless girl, lodged a written report before the Officer-in-Charge of Belpada P.S., Balangir, alleging that the accused, who was her neighbour, developed a love relationship with her on the promise of marriage and maintained physical relations with her, as a result of which she became pregnant and was about eight months pregnant at the time of lodging of the FIR. When the matter came to the knowledge of her mother and brother, they requested the accused and his father to accept her as their daughter-in-law, but the father of the accused refused. On the basis of the said report, Belpada P.S. Case No.62 of 2004 was registered and, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 417 , 506 and 493 IPC .

3. The case of the defense was one of complete denial and false implication.

4. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, of whom P.W.1, the informant/victim, P.W.2, mother of the informant, P.W.3, the informant’s brother, P.W.6, cousin of the informant are the material witnesses and several documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 and 1/1, out of which Ext.1, being the FIR, and Ext.1/1, being the signature of P.W.1 on FIR, are of significance.

Defence evidence was adduced by examining independent witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 3.

5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

6. On consideration of the evidence on record and the documents, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused Petitioner under Section 417 IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

On appeal being preferred, while confirming the order of conviction and sentence, the learned Appellate Court did not extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.O. Act’) to the Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner was not a minor and therefore no leniency ought to be shown. The said judgment is assailed in the present criminal revision.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Nanda, submits that in view of the evidence on record, he does not want to assail the conviction on merit, but submits that the reasoning for non- extension of the P.O. Act can be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, in as much as there is no finding in the impugned order that the Petitioner has any criminal proclivity while rejecting the prayer for extension of the benefit under the P.O. Act.

Considering the factual matrix of the case, in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chellammal and Anr. V. State represented by the Inspector of Police , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, this Court is inclined to direct the release of the Petitioner on Probation under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the Trial Court.

9. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-, which he undertakes to deposit within a period of four weeks fr