Ashutosh Kumar JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. The State has called in question the correctness of the order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 7/2014 whereby the accused person/respondent, though has been convicted under Section 394/411 read with section 34 of the IPC, but has been let off on probation of good conduct, subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount before the Probation Officer to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of probation and in the meantime to keep peace and good behavior for a period of one year from the date of furnishing of the bond. The respondent has also been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/- each to both the victims of the case.
2. The factual aspects of the case need not be gone into in detail as conviction has not been challenged but only the order on sentence, which has to be tested on the principles of law.
3. On 04.04.2012 Diksha, who was accompanying Vikram, both being students of St. Stephens College, was made to deliver her mobile telephone on point of a sharp object by the respondent and one Raju Tiwari @ Raju. In the process, Vikram was hurt. This led to registration of a case under Sections 392/394/411 and 34 of the IPC. Since co-accused Raju Tiwari @ Raju was a juvenile, his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders. Only the respondent was tried and convicted.
4. The mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the respondent.
5. The Trial Court on examining 18 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, gave benefit of doubt to the respondent with respect to the offence under Section 397 IPC but convicted him under Section 394/411 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide judgment dated 05.11.2015. On 19.11.2015, taking into account the fact that the respondent was a young person aged about 22 years, had two brothers, one being handicapped and one sister along with parents, the mother being paralyzed and also taking into account the financial stringency, granted the benefit of probation to the respondent. While doing so, the Court below has taken into account the report of the Probation Officer and the fact that the respondent did not have any previous involvement and had shown good and disciplined behavior.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State has challenged the aforesaid grant of the benefit of probation to the respondent on the ground that Sections 4 & 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 specifically provide that the beneficent provisions could be invoked only under the conditions enumerated in Section 4, viz. that the conviction is for such offence which is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is submitted that Section 394 of the IPC entails punishment of imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term........