Chellammal v. State

Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/rvvv/
Citation: 2025 INSC 540
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dipankar Datta, J.; Manmohan, J.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 368 of 2020)
Date of Judgment: April 22, 2025
Case Title: Chellammal & Anr. v. State
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJfsfbJg3NN
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1108636397737101

Probation of Offenders Act 1958 – Section 498A IPC – Section 360 and 361 Cr. PC – Cruelty – Dying declaration – Dowry Death – Conviction – Sentence Reduction – Rehabilitation – First-time Offender.

Conviction under Section 498A, IPC upheld for appellants (mother-in-law and husband) for cruelty towards deceased, acquitted under Section 304-B, IPC – High Court reduced husband’s sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment, maintained one-year sentence for mother-in-law – Appellants not imprisoned, no prior or subsequent criminal record – Incident arose from dispute over child’s birthday celebration, leading to deceased’s self-immolation – Dying declaration confirmed no dowry demands but alleged occasional abuse – Supreme Court found Sessions Judge and High Court failed to consider probation under Section 360, Cr. PC or Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Probation Act applicable in Tamil Nadu since 1964 – Mandatory duty to consider probation where applicable, with special reasons required for denial under Section 361, Cr. PC – Matter remitted to High Court for limited consideration of probation with probation officer’s report – Conviction maintained, interim exemption from surrender continued.

Appeal disposed.

Read Also : Probation under Indian Law – Insights from Chellammal v. State, 2025 INSC 540

Facts

The appellants, Chellammal (mother-in-law) and her son (husband of the deceased), were charged under Sections 304-B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following the death of the deceased, who set herself ablaze on January 11, 2008, after a dispute over their daughter’s birthday celebration. The deceased, aged 19, succumbed to burn injuries on January 16, 2008. Her dying declaration stated no dowry demands but alleged occasional physical abuse and verbal insults by the appellants. The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, acquitted the appellants of dowry death (Section 304-B) but convicted them under Section 498A for cruelty, sentencing Chellammal to one year and the husband to two years of rigorous imprisonment, plus fines. The Madras High Court, on November 5, 2019, upheld the convictions but reduced the husband’s sentence to one year. The appellants had not served any prison time and had no prior or subsequent criminal record. They raised their daughter, now 19 and pursuing education.

Issues

1. Whether the conviction under Section 498A, IPC, was sustainable.
2. Whether the courts below erred in not considering probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
3. Whether the appellants were entitled to probation given the case circumstances.

Held

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 498A, IPC, finding no reason to interfere with the factual findings of the lower courts based on the deceased’s dying declaration and evidence of cruelty. However, the Court noted that 17 years had passed since the incident, the appellants had no criminal history, and they had responsibly raised their daughter. The Court identified a failure of justice by the Sessions Judge and High Court in not considering probation under Section 360, Cr. PC, or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, despite their applicability. The Probation Act, in force in Tamil Nadu since 1964, has wider scope than Section 360, Cr. PC, and mandates courts to consider probation for offenses not punishable by death or life imprisonment, with special reasons required for denial under Section 361, Cr. PC. The Court remitted the case to the High Court for limited consideration of granting probation, requiring a probation officer’s report. The appellants’ interim exemption from surrendering was continued pending the High Court’s decision.

Ratio Decidendi

Courts have a mandatory duty to consider probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360, Cr. PC, where applicable, and must record special reasons for not granting it, as per Section 361, Cr. PC. The Probation Act’s broader scope and rehabilitative intent override conflicting laws, and its non-consideration constitutes a failure of justice.

Disposition

The appeal was disposed of, with the conviction upheld but the matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of probation. Interim orders were maintained, and pending applications were closed.

Key Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court in Chellammal & Anr. v. State (2025 INSC 540) relied on several precedents to address the applicability of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Below is a detailed list of the cited precedents along with their key observations as referenced in the judgment:

1. State v. A. Parthiban, (2006) 11 SCC 473
   • The Supreme Court confirmed that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, were brought into force in the State of Tamil Nadu in 1964. This clarification was critical to determining the applicability of the Probation Act over Section 360, Cr. PC in the present case, as Section 19 of the Probation Act renders Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (predecessor to Section 360, Cr. PC) inapplicable in areas where the Probation Act is in force.
2. Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 245
   • The Court held that Sections 360 and 361, Cr. PC, when read together, impose a mandatory duty on courts to consider the applicability of Section 360 (release on probation of good conduct) and to record specific reasons in the judgment if the benefit is not granted. The failure to do so constitutes a breach of this duty. Although this case did not expressly address the Probation Act, the Court in Chellammal drew an analogy to argue that similar reasoning applies to the Probation Act as beneficial legislation.
3. Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, (1973) 2 SCC 65
   • The Court clarified that Section 4(1) of the Probation Act applies to offenders of all ages, making no distinction between those below or above 21 years, unlike Section 360, Cr. PC, which imposes age-based restrictions for certain offenses. This supported the broader applicability of the Probation Act in the case.
4. Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82
   • The Court emphasized that courts must form an opinion on whether it is expedient to release an offender on probation under the Probation Act, and this consideration is mandatory. This reinforced the obligation of the trial and appellate courts to evaluate probation in the present case.
5. Jagdev Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1974) 3 SCC 412
   • The Supreme Court held that it is permissible to consider the application of the Probation Act for the first time on appeal by special leave in special circumstances, provided relevant material regarding the offense’s circumstances is on record. This supported the appellants’ plea for probation despite it not being raised earlier.
6. Rajbir v. State of Haryana, (1985) Supp SCC 272
   • The Court ruled that when granting probation under Section 4 of the Probation Act, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offense, and the character of the offender. This guided the Court’s direction to the High Court to reassess probation based on these factors.
7. MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2005) 4 SCC 605
   • The Court interpreted the word “shall” in Section 4(2) of the Probation Act as mandatory, requiring courts to obtain a probation officer’s report before granting probation, though courts are not bound by the report’s recommendations. This influenced the Supreme Court’s directive to the High Court to obtain such a report in the remitted proceedings.
8. Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police v. Sanjay Binjola, (2001) 5 SCC 317
   • The Court discussed the object of the Probation Act, emphasizing its focus on reformation and rehabilitation of offenders to prevent the deleterious effects of imprisonment. This was echoed in Chellammal to underline the rehabilitative intent of probation.
9. Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 2 SCC 763
   • Referencing the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Probation Act, the Court noted that the Act aims to release offenders on probation to foster their reformation and integration as useful members of society, avoiding the negative impacts of jail life. This supported the argument for probation in the appellants’ case.
10. Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551
    • The Court observed that many offenders are not dangerous criminals but individuals who succumbed to temptation or provocation. Probation encourages their sense of responsibility and protects them from the stigma of prison. In cases of no prior enmity and sudden flare-ups, probation is appropriate for first-time offenders, as was relevant to the appellants’ circumstances.
11. Gulzar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 1 SCC 619
    • The Court held that where the Probation Act applies, Section 360, Cr. PC, is inapplicable, as the two cannot coexist due to significant differences, such as the Probation Act’s provision for probation officers and lack of disqualification for convictions. The Probation Act has paramountcy in areas where it is in force, and courts must apply either Section 360 or the Probation Act unless special reasons are recorded under Section 361, Cr. PC. This was pivotal in establishing the Probation Act’s precedence in Tamil Nadu.
12. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 161
    • Following MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that the probation officer’s report under Section 4(2) of the Probation Act is a condition precedent for granting probation, though not binding. This reinforced the need for a report in the remitted proceedings.

These precedents collectively established that the Sessions Judge and High Court erred by not considering probation, a mandatory duty under Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section 361, Cr. PC, given the appellants’ lack of criminal history, the nature of the offense, and their responsibility for their daughter. The Probation Act’s broader scope, rehabilitative purpose, and precedence over Section 360, Cr. PC in Tamil Nadu justified remitting the case to the High Court for reconsideration of probation with a probation officer’s report.

Significance

The judgment reinforces the mandatory consideration of probation for eligible offenders, emphasizing the rehabilitative purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act and the need for courts to justify its non-application, particularly in cases involving first-time offenders with mitigating circumstances.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court in Chellammal & Anr. v. State?
   a) Validity of the dying declaration
   b) Applicability of probation under Section 360, Cr. PC, and the Probation of Offenders Act
   c) Conviction under Section 304-B, IPC
   d) Reduction of fine imposed on the appellants
   Answer: b) Applicability of probation under Section 360, Cr. PC, and the Probation of Offenders Act
2. Under which section of the IPC were the appellants convicted?
   a) Section 304-B
   b) Section 498A
   c) Section 302
   d) Section 306
   Answer: b) Section 498A
3. What was the outcome of the appellants’ charge under Section 304-B, IPC?
   a) Convicted by the Sessions Court
   b) Acquitted by the Sessions Court
   c) Convicted by the High Court
   d) Remitted to the High Court
   Answer: b) Acquitted by the Sessions Court
4. What error did the Supreme Court identify in the judgments of the Sessions Judge and High Court?
   a) Incorrect application of Section 498A, IPC
   b) Failure to consider probation under Section 360, Cr. PC, or Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act
   c) Improper reduction of the husband’s sentence
   d) Ignoring the dying declaration
   Answer: b) Failure to consider probation under Section 360, Cr. PC, or Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act
5. What action did the Supreme Court take regarding the appellants’ sentence?
   a) Set aside the conviction
   b) Enhanced the fine
   c) Remitted the case to the High Court for reconsideration of probation
   d) Upheld the imprisonment without modification
   Answer: c) Remitted the case to the High Court for reconsideration of probation
6. Which precedent clarified that the Probation of Offenders Act was in force in Tamil Nadu since 1964?
   a) Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar
   b) State v. A. Parthiban
   c) Ishar Das v. State of Punjab
   d) Gulzar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
   Answer: b) State v. A. Parthiban
7. According to the Supreme Court, what is the mandatory duty of courts under Section 361, Cr. PC?
   a) To impose a fine instead of imprisonment
   b) To record special reasons for not granting probation when applicable
   c) To convict under Section 498A, IPC
   d) To obtain a dying declaration
   Answer: b) To record special reasons for not granting probation when applicable
8. What factor influenced the Court’s decision to consider probation for the appellants?
   a) The appellants’ prior criminal record
   b) The absence of dowry demands
   c) The appellants’ care for their daughter and lack of criminal history
   d) The deceased’s age at the time of the incident
   Answer: c) The appellants’ care for their daughter and lack of criminal history
9. Which precedent emphasized that courts must obtain a probation officer’s report before granting probation?
   a) Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh
   b) MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi)
   c) Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab
   d) Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana
   Answer: b) MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi)
10. What is the scope of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act compared to Section 360, Cr. PC?
    a) Section 4 is narrower and applies only to minors
    b) Section 4 is wider and applies to offenses not punishable by death or life imprisonment
    c) Both have identical scope
    d) Section 4 applies only to repeat offenders
    Answer: b) Section 4 is wider and applies to offenses not punishable by death or life imprisonment

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the factual background of the case?
   The case involved the appellants, Chellammal (mother-in-law) and her son (husband), who were charged with cruelty (Section 498A, IPC) and dowry death (Section 304-B, IPC) after the deceased, the husband’s 19-year-old wife, set herself ablaze on January 11, 2008, following a dispute over their daughter’s birthday celebration. She died on January 16, 2008. Her dying declaration confirmed no dowry demands but alleged occasional abuse by the appellants.
2. What were the charges against the appellants, and what was the outcome in the lower courts?
   The appellants were charged under Sections 304-B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC. The Sessions Judge acquitted them of Section 304-B but convicted them under Section 498A, sentencing Chellammal to one year and the husband to two years of rigorous imprisonment, plus fines. The Madras High Court upheld the convictions, reduced the husband’s sentence to one year, and maintained the fines.
3. Why did the Supreme Court not interfere with the conviction under Section 498A, IPC?
   The Supreme Court found that the Sessions Judge and High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence, including the dying declaration, which alleged occasional physical and verbal abuse by the appellants. The factual findings of cruelty were upheld as they were based on a sound evaluation of the record.
4. What error did the Supreme Court identify in the lower courts’ judgments?
   The Supreme Court held that both the Sessions Judge and the High Court failed to consider whether the appellants were eligible for probation under Section 360, Cr. PC, or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This omission was deemed a failure of justice, as courts are mandated to evaluate probation in applicable cases.
5. Why was probation considered a viable option for the appellants?
   The Court noted that 17 years had passed since the incident, the appellants had no prior or subsequent criminal record, and they had responsibly raised their daughter, now 19 and pursuing education. These factors, along with the non-grave nature of the offense (arising from a domestic dispute), supported the consideration of probation to avoid the negative impact of imprisonment.
6. What is the significance of the Probation of Offenders Act in this case?
   The Probation Act, in force in Tamil Nadu since 1964, has a broader scope than Section 360, Cr. PC, applying to any offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Its rehabilitative purpose emphasizes reforming offenders rather than subjecting them to imprisonment. The Court held that courts must consider probation under Section 4 and record reasons for denial, as per Section 361, Cr. PC.
7. What role does the probation officer’s report play under the Probation Act?
   As per MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi), courts must obtain a probation officer’s report before granting probation under Section 4(2) of the Probation Act, though they are not bound by its recommendations. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to obtain such a report to decide on probation for the appellants.
8. What was the Supreme Court’s final order in the case?
   The Court upheld the appellants’ conviction under Section 498A, IPC, but remitted the case to the Madras High Court for limited reconsideration of granting probation, requiring a probation officer’s report. The appellants’ interim exemption from surrendering was continued pending the High Court’s decision.
9. How does Section 361, Cr. PC, relate to the case?
   Section 361, Cr. PC, mandates that courts record special reasons in their judgment if they do not grant probation under Section 360, Cr. PC, or the Probation Act when these provisions are applicable. The failure to do so by the lower courts was a key reason for the Supreme Court’s intervention.
10. What broader legal principle did the case reinforce?
    The case underscored the mandatory duty of courts to consider probation for eligible offenders, particularly first-time offenders, to promote rehabilitation over punitive measures. It highlighted the Probation Act’s precedence over Section 360, Cr. PC, in areas where it is in force and the need for reasoned judgments when denying probation.

Keywords

Section 498A IPC, Probation of Offenders Act, Section 360 Cr. PC, cruelty, probation, dying declaration, High Court, Supreme Court.