Delhi court grants probation to two in 2013 stabbing case for good conduct
A Delhi court has released two men on probation for good conduct, 13 years after they were booked for stabbing a man with a screwdriver, saying that sending them to jail at this belated stage would serve no meaningful purpose.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler was hearing appeals filed by Amrish Thakur alias Mirchi and Yogender Lal alias Jhunjhun against a July 2025 magisterial court order that had sentenced them to six months of simple imprisonment under sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
According to the prosecution, Thakur and Lal, along with another co-accused, Rakesh, accosted Deepak on October 19, 2013, and stabbed him with a screwdriver in the neck and shoulders. They also hit him on the head with a stone.
In an order dated August 3, the court said, “Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, empowers a court, where a person is found guilty of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, to release such offender on probation of good conduct, having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, instead of sentencing him at once to imprisonment.”
It said the underlying philosophy of the Act is unambiguously reformative rather than retributive, the object being to prevent the conversion of first-time and youthful offenders into hardened criminals through unnecessary incarceration.
The court noted that, according to the medical reports, the victim sustained simple injuries and said that, in offences involving simple hurt where the convict has no previous conviction, the benefit of probation ought ordinarily to be extended, subject to appropriate safeguards such as payment of compensation and furnishing of a bond for good behaviour.
“The convicts have already remained under the continuing strain of prosecution, trial, and appellate proceedings for nearly 13 years since the year 2013, which itself constitutes a substantial deterrent and reformative consequence, quite apart from any sentence of imprisonment,” it said.
The court said that the offence, though serious enough to warrant conviction, does not disclose any element of moral turpitude, premeditated cruelty, or repeated criminal conduct that would militate against the grant of probation.
“This court is satisfied that this is a fit case for the grant of the benefit of probation... and that sending the convicts to prison at this belated stage would serve no meaningful or deterrent purpose, but would, on the contrary, be productive of the very harm that the (the Probation of Offenders) Act seeks to avert,” Judge Laler said.
He modified the magistrate’s order “without disturbing or interfering with the finding of conviction” and said that the convicts be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, in lieu of undergoing the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them.
As part of the conditions for their release, the judge directed each convict to deposit Rs 10,000 as compensation to be paid to the victim. They were also ordered to furnish a bond of Rs 15,000 each to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. The court warned that if they fail to deposit the compensation or breach the peace during the probation period, they would be liable to serve the original six-month jail sentence.
