Court quashes robber's jail term, says he has changed

A two-year jail term of a man, guilty of robbing a mobile phone, has been set aside by a court here which took a lenient view towards him considering that he kept away from world of crime during trial.

The court made the observation while partly allowing the convict's appeal and released him on probation of good conduct on a bond of Rs 30,000 and a surety of like amount.

"Considering the fact that appellant (convict) has changed his way of living by keeping himself away from the world of crime, the court should come forward to support the appellant to keep him so in tune with the requirement of a civilised society," Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar said.
 

The judge, who upheld the conviction of Vijay Singh in the 10 years old robbery case, said he committed a serious offence but had already spent over four months in jail during the trial.

"No doubt, the offence is of a serious nature, but the appellant has already undergone incarceration for more than four months. Now, he has four kids to take care of and he is the only earning members of his family. His involvement in any criminal activity subsequent to year 2007 has not been brought on record.

"Therefore, I consider it a to be a fit case to give benefit of probation to him," the court said.

Additionally, the court also directed the convict to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to victim Mohamed Shabaz, who was robbed and beaten by the convict and his juvenile friends on September 20, 2007.

According to the prosecution, the victim was walking towards his home in the morning when he was attacked by four persons, including the convict.

They pinned him to the ground and stole his mobile phone after kicking and punching him, it said.

The co-accused were sent to juvenile justice board for proceedings against them.

Singh was awarded a two-year jail term by a magisterial court on December 3, 2016.

He challenged the order contending that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution when the complainant was assaulted and there was lack of evidence against him.