1. Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and release on admonition under Section 360 CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 530
1999(9) Supreme 415
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
State of Karnataka -Appellant
versus
Muddappa -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1994
Decided on 20-4-1999
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
There is no statutory bar under the Probation of Offenders Act for application of the Act to an offence under Section 304, Part II IPC.
There is no statutory bar under the Probation of Offenders Act for application of the Act to an offence under Section 304, Part II IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Probation
Act Referred
Headnote
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-Section 4-Availability of benefit to convict u/s 304 Part II IPC-No statutory bar for application of Act to an offence u/s 304 Part II IPC.
Where the High Court while convicting the accused u/s 304 Part II IPC altering the conviction rendered by the Trial Court, instead of sentencing him, directed to released the accused on admonition, but the State in appeal contended that the Court did not bear in mind germane considerations for releasing the accused on probation after convicting him under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Held : Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended in any particular case depends upon the circumstances of that case. Admittedly, there is no statutory bar for application of the Act to an offence under Section 304 Part II where the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life. In that view of the matter and on examining the impugned judgment of the High Court we find that the Court did consider the relevant material and then came to the conclusion that the accused should be released on probation by applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We see no infirmity with that order to be interfered with by this Court after this length of time, more so when nothing has been pointed out as to whether the accused has, in any way, violated the terms and conditions of allowing him on probation. (Para 2)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the High Court's decision to release the accused on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act after conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. (Para 2 )
3. The court found that the High Court considered relevant material and that no statutory bar exists for applying the Probation of Offenders Act to Section 304 Part II IPC. (Para 2 )
4. The Probation of Offenders Act applies to offences under Section 304 Part II IPC as the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed and bail bonds discharged. (Para 3 )
6. Can the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act be extended to a person convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC?
Yes, there is no statutory bar for the application of the Act to an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, as the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life. (Para 2 )
7. What determines whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should be extended in a particular case?
The extension of the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act depends upon the specific circumstances of the case and the court's consideration of relevant material. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against Accused 3 alone who was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. But, on appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and instead, convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC. For such conviction, the High Court also examined the circumstances under which the blow was inflicted by the accused on the deceased and, on consideration of the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the High Court, instead of sentencing him, directed to release the accused on admonition.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to assail the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 IPC, but he vehemently contends that the Court did not bear in mind germane considerations for releasing the accused on probation after convicting him under Section 304 Part II IPC. Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended in any particular case depends upon the circumstances of that case. Admittedly, there is no statutory bar for application of the Act to an offence under Section 304 Part II where the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life. In that view of the matter and on examining the impugned judgment of the High Court we find that the Court did consider the relevant material and then came to the conclusion that the accused should be released on probation by applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We see no infirmity with that order to be interfered with by this Court after this length of time, more so when nothing has been pointed out as to whether the accused has, in any way, violated the terms and conditions of allowing him on probation.
3. We, accordingly, dismiss this appeal. Bail bonds of the respondent stand discharged.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
*************
