Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 23.12.2025
+ CRL.A. 475/2024 & CRLM (BAIL) 863/2024
SH. RAVI .....Appellant
Through: Mr Siddarth Yadav, Mr Anmol Kumar
and Ms Jyoti Yadav, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with
SI Rajesh Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment
of conviction dated 17.07.2023 and the order on sentence dated 28.11.2023,
passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (North-West), Rohini
Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.682/17, arising out of FIR No. 785/2016
registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar under Sections 392/394/397/411/34
IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned judgment, the appellant Ravi
was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411 IPC
and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and was acquitted of the charge under Section
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:23.12.2025
16:02:14
394 IPC. The co-accused Gautam was acquitted of all charges.
2. Vide the order on sentence dated 28.11.2023, the appellant was
sentenced to undergo five years’ Rigorous Imprisonment, with a fine of
Rs.3,000/- , in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months, for the offence under Section 392 IPC. Further, he was sentenced
to undergo seven years’ Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the
offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. He was also directed to undergo one
year’s Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 411
IPC. Lastly, he was sentenced to undergo two years’ Rigorous Imprisonment
for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court directed that
all sentences shall run concurrently and extended the benefit of Section 428
Cr.P.C to the appellant.
3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 25.09.2016 at about 10:30
PM, the complainant Vishal (PW-2) was returning to his house after purchasing
food when he was intercepted near Shiv Palace, Vijay Vihar Phase-II, Delhi, by
two persons riding a motorcycle. It is alleged that the appellant Ravi, who was
riding pillion, threatened the complainant with a knife and robbed him of his
OPPO mobile phone. While the other accused managed to flee on the
motorcycle, the appellant was apprehended at the spot by the complainant with
the assistance of public persons, and the robbed mobile phone and knife were
recovered from his possession.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW-2,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:23.12.2025
16:02:14
the complainant, supported the prosecution version and identified the appellant
in Court as the assailant who had robbed him at knife-point. PW-3, the
employer of the complainant, proved ownership of the robbed mobile phone.
The remaining witnesses, including police officials, deposed with regard to the
registration of the FIR, arrest of the appellant, recovery of the mobile phone
and knife, and the investigation carried out in the case.
5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all
incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication, stating that he was
not present at the spot at the time of the incident. No defence evidence was led.
6. The Trial Court correctly held that the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant Ravi was apprehended at the spot in
possession of the robbed mobile phone and a knife, and was accordingly
convicted under Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms
Act, while being acquitted of the charge under Section 394 IPC. Upon re-
appraisal, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings returned by the Trial
Court. It is well settled that actual injury is not a prerequisite for attracting
Section 397 IPC. The mere display or brandishing of a weapon in a manner
sufficient to instil fear and facilitate the commission of robbery constitutes the
use within the meaning of the provision. In the present case, the complainant
has consistently deposed that the appellant was holding a knife during the
robbery, which was sufficient to overpower him. The MLC records that there
were blisters burn marks which, were not caused by any of the persons
involved in the offence, which is consistent with the prosecution case and
supports the acquittal under Section 394 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:23.12.2025
16:02:14
the appellant Ravi under Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC and Section 25 of the
Arms Act calls for no interference.
7. The appellant is present through VC from the Central Jail, Tihar being
produced by Head warden Balam Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits on instructions that, the appellant being a first time offender with clean
antecedents and having no other criminal involvements does not wish to press
the appeal on merits and confines his prayer to seeking release on probation.
Further, it is stated that a lenient view be taken, considering the family
circumstances of the appellant. Lastly, the counsel on instructions, submits that
the appellant undertakes to deposit the fine amount as directed by the trial
court.
8. Learned APP for the state has handed over a status report regarding
previous involvements of the appellant, which is taken on record. The report
confirms that the appellant is not involved in any other case.
9. Pursuant to this Court’s directions, the Probation Report submitted in
respect of the convict Ravi records that he is a 31-year-old unmarried man,
resident of H-238, Sultanpuri, Delhi. At the time of the offence, he was 22
years of age and was working as a salesman for clothes. He is educated up to
th
the 9 standard. The report notes that he belongs to a lower socio-economic
background and resides with his family in a house measuring approximately 35
sq. yards, consisting of one small room on each floor. His mother, Pushpa
Devi , aged about 60 years, is a homemaker, and his brother is employed in
private service. The family environment is described as stable and supportive.
The SIR records that the convict has cordial relations with his family members
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:23.12.2025
16:02:14
and neighbours, who have described him as a family-oriented individual who
has been consistently engaged in daily work over the past several years and has
not displayed any violent behaviour in the locality. The report further notes that
the convict has no prior criminal antecedents, no other case pending against
him, and has not availed any parole or furlough till date. His overall jail
conduct has been reported as satisfactory, and he has been working as a Lunger
Sahayak while in custody, indicating constructive utilisation of time. His health
status is noted to be normal as per the nominal roll. Upon interaction, the
Probation Officer assessed that the convict does not exhibit a criminal bent of
mind, has demonstrated sincerity during incarceration, and has positive social
and familial support. In view of the above factors, the Probation Officer has
opined that the convict shows prospects of rehabilitation and is suitable for
consideration for release on probation under supervision.
10. The nominal roll dated 04.12.2025 of the appellant is on record, as per
which the appellant has undergone about 2 years and 9 months of his sentence
including remission. It further records his jail conduct is recorded as
satisfactory. However, he has not deposited the fine amount.
11. The underlying object of releasing offenders on probation is to facilitate
their reintegration into society as law-abiding citizens, fostering self-reliance
and aiding in their reformation. A testament to the importance of this provision
is that the Supreme Court in Lakhvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab &
1
Anr. , has extended the benefits of the Probation Act even to convicts who had
not completed the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years as prescribed
1
(2021) 2 SCC 763
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:23.12.2025
16:02:14
in Section 397 IPC, since IPC was enacted before the Probation Act came into
being. The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:-
“16. … A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE v.
Bahubali¹⁵. It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific
law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the
law contains a non obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply
in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation
enacted after the Act.¹⁶ It is in this context, it was observed in State of M.P. v.
Vikram Das⁶ that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory
sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the
aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation
under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory
minimum sentence under Section 397 IPC, the offence in the present case. In
fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab¹⁷ are in the
same context.
…
18. We, thus, release the appellants on probation of good conduct under
Section 4 of the said Act on their completion of half the sentence and on their
entering into a bond with two sureties each to ensure that they maintain peace
and good behaviour for the remaining part of their sentence, failing which
they can be called upon to serve that part of the sentence.”
12. In the present case, the appellant Ravi stands convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms
Act. Section 392 IPC does not prescribe any minimum sentence. While Section
397 IPC prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years’ rigorous
imprisonment, the same does not exclude the applicability of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, in view of the law laid down in Lakhvir Singh (supra) .
Section 411 IPC also does not prescribe any mandatory minimum punishment.
It is further noted that, as per the nominal roll, the appellant has already
undergone the substantive sentence imposed upon him for the offence under
Section 25 of the Arms Act, thereby satisfying the mandatory custodial
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:23.12.2025
16:02:14
requirement under the said statute.
13. Having regard to the appellant’s family circumstances, the absence of
any adverse criminal antecedents, the favourable observations recorded in the
Probation Report, his satisfactory jail conduct, this Court is persuaded that the
ends of justice would be met by adopting a reformative approach. The appellant
was young at the time of the offence and has remained in custody for a
substantial period.
14. Accordingly, while upholding the impugned judgment of conviction in
respect of offences under Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC and Section 25 of the
Arms Act, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the
appellant Ravi is modified to the extent that he shall be released on probation of
good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon
furnishing a probation bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, within four weeks from
today. The appellant shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period
of probation and shall not commit any offence. The appellant shall remain
under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer for a period of one
year, and shall report before the Probation Officer once every month.
15. It is made clear that in the event of any breach of the conditions of
probation or involvement in any other criminal activity during the period of
probation, the benefit granted under this order shall stand revoked, and the
appellant shall be liable to undergo the remaining portion of the substantive
sentence as originally awarded by the Trial Court.
16. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:23.12.2025
16:02:14
also stands disposed of.
17. The appellant has voluntarily undertaken to deposit the fine at the time of
his release. The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith.
18. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Trial Court,
the Probation Officer, and the concerned Jail Superintendent for information
and compliance.
19. Dasti.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 23, 2025
kb
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:23.12.2025
16:02:14