The Thane Sessions Court has rejected the application filed by a 28-year-old Thane resident who was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court in 2016 and found guilty under Section 324 of the IPC (causing voluntary hurt to someone). However, the court has decided to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused instead of imprisonment. The court observed that at the time of the incident, which occurred in 2009, the accused was just 21 years old. Additionally, as no criminal background was found on record, the accused was deemed eligible for the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

“The interference is caused only on the ground that at the time of the incident, the accused was 21 years old, and it occurred in 2009. It appears that there is enmity between the witnesses and the accused. Therefore, a report from the Probation Officer was called for. The Probation Officer submitted a report dated 08.10.2024, providing details of the accused’s family members as well as any previous criminal record. Upon perusal of the report, it appears that no previous crime is registered against the accused. Thus, in my view, the accused ought to have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act,” the court held while passing the order.

According to case details, Joginder Walmiki was convicted by the Magistrate and punished under Section 324 of the IPC, receiving a sentence of six months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,500. Accordingly, an appeal was filed by Walmiki.

In his complaint, Walmiki stated that on June 17, 2009, the informant (complainant), Vinod Singh, along with his friends and younger brother Ajay, was standing near a public toilet adjacent to his house in Gandhinagar, Thane. At that time, the accused and his brother arrived there, and without any reason or provocation, the accused suddenly assaulted the informant with a knife. When Ajay tried to intervene, the accused assaulted him as well. Consequently, an FIR was filed at the Vartak Nagar police station.

The Magistrate, while deciding the matter, relied on oral and documentary evidence. After hearing both parties, the accused was convicted of the mentioned offenses.

“The prosecution and witnesses fully discharged their burden by proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and order. However, the interference is caused only on the ground that at the time of the incident, the accused was 21 years old, and the incident occurred in 2009. It appears that there is enmity between the witnesses and the accused. Therefore, a report from the Probation Officer was called for. The Probation Officer submitted a report dated 08.10.2024, providing details of the accused’s family members as well as any previous criminal record. Upon perusal of the report, it appears that no previous crime is registered against the accused. Thus, in my view, the accused ought to have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act,” reads the order copy.

Furthermore, the accused has been directed to present himself within 14 days from the date of the order before the District Probation Officer and produce copies of the order and the bond executed by him. The accused has also been directed to adhere to the following conditions:

1. He will live honestly and peacefully and endeavor to earn an honest livelihood.

2. He will not associate with bad characters or lead a dissolute life.

3. He will not commit any offense punishable under any law in force in India.

4. He will abstain from taking intoxicants.

5. He will follow and comply with any directions issued by the Probation Officer from time to time for the due observance of these conditions.

Additionally, the accused has been directed to pay a fine of ₹25,000, excluding the fine imposed under the impugned order. The fine is to be deposited and credited to the State Government.