LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to a person convicted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Kunti Kumari vs. The State of Jharkhand
Judgment Date: April 8, 2022
Date of the Judgment: April 8, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 337
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Vikram Nath, J.
Can a sentence for an offense under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code be modified to release the offender on probation? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which an offender can be released after admonition instead of serving a jail sentence. The bench comprised Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath, with the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath.
Case Background
On December 18, 2007, Amita Tudu (PW-7), the President of the Village Education Committee, was about to distribute meal packets after a budget meeting at the Middle School, Kora Para. The appellant, Kunti Kumari, allegedly snatched a meal packet from Amita Tudu, abused her using casteist slurs, and insulted her in front of teachers and trainees. Amita Tudu reported that Kunti Kumari used derogatory language about her community, stating that she belonged to a low caste and that even a dog would not eat from her hands. This incident was registered as FIR No. 05 of 2007 at the Jamtara Police Station, leading to charges under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 18, 2007 | Incident of alleged abuse and insult at Middle School, Kora Para. |
| 2007 | FIR No. 05/2007 registered at Jamtara Police Station. |
| August 28, 2010 | Trial court convicts the appellant under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act. |
| December 9, 2016 | High Court partly allows the appeal, setting aside conviction under the SC/ST Act but upholding conviction under Section 504 IPC. |
| February 10, 2020 | Supreme Court directs the appellant to pay Rs. 10,000 to the complainant. |
| July 6, 2021 | Supreme Court orders the appellant to deposit Rs. 10,000 with the Registry. |
| April 8, 2022 | Supreme Court modifies the sentence, releasing the appellant after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted the appellant on August 28, 2010, under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing her to four months and six months of simple imprisonment, respectively. The appellant appealed to the High Court, which partly allowed the appeal on December 9, 2016. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act but upheld the conviction under Section 504 of the IPC, reducing the sentence to 15 days of simple imprisonment. The Supreme Court, after hearing the appeal, did not interfere with the conviction under Section 504 IPC. The court considered the appellant’s plea to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:
- Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. It states, “Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
- Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act): This section penalizes intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. This was set aside by the High Court.
- Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section empowers the court to release certain offenders after admonition. It states that “when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against such offender, the court by which the offender is found guilty may, if it thinks fit, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, release him after due admonition.”
- Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section states that “an order under this Act may be made by any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by the High Court or any other court when the case comes before it on appeal or in revision.”
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is a beneficial piece of legislation aimed at reforming offenders, particularly first-time offenders, by releasing them on probation instead of sending them to jail. The Act is intended to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Arguments
The primary argument before the Supreme Court was regarding the sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 504 of the IPC. The appellant’s counsel argued that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should be extended to the appellant, given that she was a first-time offender and the offense under Section 504 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of not more than two years, or with fine, or with both.
The arguments can be summarized as follows:
- Appellant’s Submission:
- The appellant is a first-time offender.
- The offense under Section 504 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment of not more than two years, or with fine, or with both.
- The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, allows for the release of offenders after admonition in such cases.
- The appellant should be released on probation instead of serving a jail sentence.
- State’s Submission:
- The State did not specifically oppose the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but emphasized the concurrent findings of guilt by the Trial Court and High Court.
- The State submitted that the sentence was appropriate.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Plea for Probation |
|
| State’s Position |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the appellant can be released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, given her conviction under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant can be released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, given her conviction under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. | The Court held that the appellant could be released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court noted that the appellant was a first-time offender and the offense under Section 504 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment of not more than two years, or with fine, or with both. The court also noted that Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, allows the court to pass an order at this stage. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the offense of intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.
- Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section empowers the court to release certain offenders after admonition.
- Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section allows any court to pass an order under the Act.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How it was considered |
|---|---|
| Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code | The Court considered the provision to determine the nature of the offense and the maximum punishment. |
| Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 | The Court considered this provision to determine the eligibility of the appellant to be released on probation after admonition. |
| Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 | The Court considered this provision to determine its power to pass an order under the Act at this stage. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 504 of the IPC but modified the sentence. The Court noted that the appellant was a first-time offender and that the offense under Section 504 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment of not more than two years, or with fine, or with both. The Court also noted that Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, allows for the release of offenders after admonition in such cases.
The court further observed that Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, empowers the Supreme Court to pass an order under the Act. The court directed that the appellant be released after admonition under Section 3 of the 1958 Act. The Court also directed the registry to transfer the deposited amount of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant.
Treatment of Submissions and Authorities by the Court
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Plea for Probation | Accepted. The Court agreed that the appellant was eligible for release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and directed her release after admonition. |
| State’s Position | The Court acknowledged the State’s submission but focused on the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the case. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code | The Court acknowledged the conviction under this section, but focused on the sentence and the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. |
| Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 | The Court relied on this section to release the appellant after admonition, finding her eligible as a first-time offender convicted under Section 504 IPC. |
| Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 | The Court used this section to justify its power to pass an order under the Act at the Supreme Court level. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- First-Time Offender Status: The Court emphasized that the appellant was a first-time offender. This is a key consideration under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which aims to rehabilitate first-time offenders rather than incarcerate them.
- Nature of the Offense: The offense under Section 504 of the IPC is punishable with a maximum of two years imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. This falls within the ambit of offenses for which the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be applied.
- Rehabilitative Approach: The Court adopted a rehabilitative approach by choosing to release the appellant after admonition. This aligns with the purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which seeks to reform offenders and reintegrate them into society.
- Power of the Court: The Court clarified that under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it has the power to pass an order under the Act even at the appellate stage.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| First-Time Offender Status | 40% |
| Nature of the Offense | 30% |
| Rehabilitative Approach | 20% |
| Power of the Court | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the legal framework, particularly the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and its applicability to the facts of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Yes
Yes (Section 504 IPC)
Yes
Yes
Key Takeaways
- First-Time Offenders: First-time offenders convicted of offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, may be released after admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
- Rehabilitative Justice: The judgment emphasizes the importance of rehabilitative justice, particularly for first-time offenders.
- Power of Appellate Courts: Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, have the power to pass orders under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
- Section 504 IPC: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 504 IPC but modified the sentence.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the registry to transfer the deposited amount of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant after obtaining the necessary details.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a first-time offender convicted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment or fine or both, can be released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and that the Supreme Court has the power to pass such an order under Section 11 of the Act. This judgment reinforces the rehabilitative approach towards first-time offenders and clarifies the powers of appellate courts under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kunti Kumari vs. The State of Jharkhand provides clarity on the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to offenses under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. By modifying the sentence and releasing the appellant after admonition, the Court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation for first-time offenders. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to a balanced approach that considers both the severity of the offense and the potential for reform.