$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 04.07.2025 + CRL.A. 549/2007 & CRL.M.A. 14125/2025 AJAY KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Advocate.

versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated 24.07.2007 and order on sentence dated 02.08.2007, passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in Sessions Case No. 81/2006, arising out of FIR No. 302/2003, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi.

2. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 392/394/34 and Section 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] wherein the appellant was CRL.A. 549/2007 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years and payment of fine of ₹2,000/- (in default, simple imprisonment for 02 months) for offence under Sections 392/34 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 04 years and 06 months and payment of fine of ₹2,000/- (in default, simple imprisonment for 02 months) for offence under Section 394 of IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years for offence under Section 397 of IPC.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on 22.07.2003, Shri Bhushan Bhandari, resident of Karampura, Delhi, had been robbed of ₹7,50,000/‑, which his accountant had withdrawn earlier the same day from Bank of Punjab, West Punjabi Bagh Branch, Delhi. It was alleged that two young men had entered his office, one of whom had brandished a knife while the other had thrown red-chilli powder into the complainant‟s eyes, thereby facilitating the robbery. The assailant carrying the cash bag had fled, whereas the complainant had apprehended the other assailant, later identified as Dalip Yadav. During interrogation, Dalip Yadav had disclosed that the robbery had been planned in conspiracy with household servant Mr. „S‟ (a juvenile) and two other individuals, namely Ajay Kumar (the present appellant) and Parmod. Dalip Yadav and Mr. „S‟ had been handed over to the police, the complainant had been medically examined at MGS Hospital, and the present FIR had been registered.

4. Subsequently, after the conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections

392/394/34 and Section 397 of IPC.

CRL.A. 549/2007 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without pressing the appeal on merits insofar as the conviction under Section 392/34 of IPC and Section 397 of IPC is concerned, the appellant may be considered for grant of benefit of probation. It is submitted that the appellant is a first-time offender and has already undergone a substantial period of custody, i.e. about five and a half years, and has earned remission of about six months. It is further argued that although there is an allegation regarding the appellant being in possession of a knife at the time of the incident, there is no recovery of any weapon from the appellant, and in these circumstances, a lenient view may be taken. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant has deep roots in society and undertakes to maintain peace and good behaviour in the future. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and prays that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be modified by extending the benefit of probation.

6. The learned APP for the State, while opposing the prayer for probation, submits that the gravity of the offence does not warrant the benefit of probation being granted. It is, however, not disputed that the appella