Delhi District Court
State vs Varun Rana & Another on 24 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. APOORVA RANA, M.M-10,
DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSW02-012132-2016
State Vs Varun Rana & Another
FIR NO. 532/15
U/s: 325/34 IPC.
P.S: Kapashera
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1.It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that keeping in view the nature of offence for commission of which the convicts have been found guilty, they should be punished severely, to deter such like minded persons in the society.
2. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the Convicts that they are young persons with their careers ahead of them and are remorseful for their conduct resulting in the incident in question, that happened during their college time, owing to their immaturity to reason. It has been further submitted that they are ready to compensate the complainant and accordingly, their counsel has requested to release the convicts on probation.
3. I have heard learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel and convicts in person and have perused the record of the file very carefully, including the victim impact report and the affidavits filed by the convicts. The reports of the Probation Officer have also been perused.
State Vs. Varun Rana & ANR Page No.1 / 54. At this stage, it may be apposite to advert to the observation of the Hon'ble Tripura High Court in Mithun Debnath Vs. State of Tripura reported in (2014) 2 TLR 922, where, while applying the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a first time offender convicted under Section 325 IPC, it was observed as follows:
"22. The modern trend of penology is towards reformation of criminals, especially those who are at the younger age. First time offenders must normally be given a chance to improve themselves. Sending first time offenders to jail in offences where they can get benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Cr.PC is against the spirit of these provisions. As held by this Court above, it is not that in every case this benefit must be extended. The Court convicting the accused is best suited to decide this matter. It is the Judge who has seen the accused, seen his behaviour in Court and also knows how the occurrence took place. If the occurrence shows that the accused is a cruel person and is not likely to improve, the Court would be fully justified in not granting this benefit but if on the other hand, there is material to show that reformation can be carried out if the convict is a first time offender, he must be given benefit of these provisions."
5. In the present matter, the facts of the case show that the act of the Convicts does not appear to be a predominantly premeditated one in as much as the Convicts did not come prepared with any weapons of offence to inflict injury upon the complainant, or such, as would exhibit the mindset of a hardened criminal. Moreover, the convicts submit that they are remorseful for their acts which happened in a fit of rage owing to their immature sense to reason. Their conduct during trial has been State Vs. Varun Rana & ANR Page No.2 / 5 fairly regular and no attempt to delay the proceedings in the matter seems to have been made by the convicts. Moreover, they have no previous conviction record for similar offence to their credit. Further, they have also submitted that they are ready to compensate the complainant towards the physical injury and mental trauma suffered by him owing to the incident. Statement of both the convicts to this effect has been recorded separately today. The complainant has also not objected to receipt of due compensation and release of convicts on Probation.
6. Upon enquiry by the court, the complainant could not produce the medical documents showing the expenditure incurred by him for his treatment, but produced the discharge summary of Safdarjung Hospital, where he was treated for his nasal fracture. He also submitted that he had incurred a total of around Rs.80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- in his treatment at the hospital and suffered the extra loss as stated in the Victim Impact Report, owing to the 2 year college fees he had to forego, for not being able to complete his studies from the concerned College, thereafter. Statement of complainant to this effect recorded separately today.
7. In view of the favorable report given qua the convicts by Probation Officer, the said convicts are directed to be released on probation of good conduct as per Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, subject to furnishing of personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, each and subject to the fact they would appear and receive sentence from this Court, if they fail to keep peace and good behaviour, in State Vs. Varun Rana & ANR Page No.3 / 5 the next three years. The bonds shall remain in effect for a period of three years from today.
8. Additionally, in light of the submissions made by Convicts with regard to payment of compensation to the Complainant and keeping in view the paying capacity of the Convicts and the actual expenditure incurred by the complainant consequent to the incident in question, both the Convicts are directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- each, as compensation to the complainant/injured, thus amounting to a total of Rs. 1,80,000/- The said amount be deposited by the convict with DLSA, South- West Dwarka, on or before next date of hearing, which shall be disbursed by DLSA, South-West, Dwarka to the victim as per its Scheme, in terms of the judgment Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020 titled Karan Vs. State NCT of Delhi passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The receipt be placed on record on the next date of hearing. However, keeping in view the assessment of the DLSA, Dwarka South in its victim impact report, the actual loss suffered by the victim consequent to the incident in question and the financial background of the family of complainant, this court is satisfied that the compensation awarded as above is not adequate for such rehabilitation of the victim and thus, in terms of Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C, the victim is directed to approach DLSA, South West, Dwarka for claiming further compensation if any as per rules and Scheme of DLSA under the said provision.
9. As far as the question of cost of prosecution is concerned, the expenses incurred on the prosecution of the State Vs. Varun Rana & ANR Page No.4 / 5 convict are stated to be approximately Rs. 8,248/- in its affidavit. Considering the paying capacity of the convicts, they are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- in total (Rs.1500/- each) as the expenses incurred on the prosecution. Cost paid. Receipt issued.
10. Copy of judgment as well as copy of this order be given dasti to the convicts free of cost immediately.
Announced in the open Court Dated: 24.12.2021.
(APOORVA RANA) M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/24.12.2021 State Vs. Varun Rana & ANR Page No.5 / 5