The burglar should be able to recover damages from the homeowner on the theory that 1) spring guns are unreasonable, 2) the spring gun caused damages, and 3) significant damages actually occurred. States or countries with contributory negligence laws may be problematic.
Regarding the criminality of it, I think that you cannot argue any available self defense theory. You can typically argue self defense when defending yourself or your home (no need to survey the burglars and see if they mean you harm) or to stop a violent felony in progress. The problem here is there is no judgment by the homeowner being implemented. There are a number of reasons that someone may enter the home that may not fit one of the definitions of self defense. The spring gun cannot tell the difference, and I think therefore does not work under a self defense theory. Reckless homicide is the verdict, 8-15 years.
