Vijendra Kumar v. The State, NCT of Delhi

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR. I. (ORAL)

1. The impugned conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner relates to an incident of 29'^'^ March, 1999. On that day, at about 9:30 a.m. petitioner had tried to board a bus from the front-exit door and was stopped from doing so by its bus driver- Hans Raj, which infuriated the petitioner who picked up a brick and threw it at the bus driver, injuring him. At the instance of the injured bus driver- Hans Raj, FIR No.286/1999 was registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Petitioner was Crl.Rev. P. No.529/2008 Page 1 2011:DHC:1965[5] /fr\ tried and convicted for committing offence under Sections 353/332/186/323 of the IPC by the trial court.

2. Impugned order of 3'"' September, 2008, of the appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 332 of the IPC alone and reduced the substantive sentence from one year to rigorous imprisonment for five months for the said offence.

3. At the very outset, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the impugned order on merits and submits that the petitioner is the first offender and is not facing trial in any other criminal case and has already remained behind bars for about 20 days and is facing the agony of these proceedings since the year 1999 and is now aged about 43 years. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is earning his livelihood by running a tea stall and he has a handicapped brother and a family to support. Counsel for the petitioner prays for leniency.

4. Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record of this case, it transpires that order of the trial court as well as appellate Court on the sentence aspect does not reveal petitioner's involvement in any other case. Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, the time lapse and the antecedents as well as family background of the petitioner, it would serve no purpose to now send the petitioner behind the bars to serve out the remainder of the sentence awarded to him. Instead thereof, the appropriate course would be to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself. CrlRev. P. No.529/2008 Page 2

5. In this view of the matter, i find that grant of probation to the petitioner under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. would be an appropriate course to be adopted in light of the emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders as useful and self reliant members of the society, without subjecting them to deleterious effects of jail life.

6. Consequentially, it is directed that petitioner -Tamanna Khan, son of Ahmad Khan, be released on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing probation bond in the sum of ?10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned court for furnishing the probation bond for good behavior within four weeks and in the event of default, petitioner shall be liable to undergo the substantive sentence awarded to him in this case. The amount of fine of ?5,000/- deposited by the petitioner shall be treated as compensation in this case and be released to the complainant/ first-informant/injured- Hans Raj.

7. With aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of. Trial court be apprised of this order to ensure its compliance. INILGAUR, J September 23, 2011 rs CrI.Rev. P. No.529/2008 Page 3