Appeal against conviction and sentence for robbery under Section 392/34 IPC. The court upheld the conviction but, noting clean antecedents, a favourable Social Investigation Report and no mandatory minimum sentence, modified imprisonment to release the appellant on probation of good conduct for one year under supervision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SALIM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rashid Hasmi Advocate alongwith appellant
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State With SI Rajesh Kumar, PS Mukherjee Nagar, SI Hemant Kumar, PS Jafrabad
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 7
CRL. A. 395/2017
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:19.11.2025 20:28:53
of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to further undergo three months’ Simple Imprisonment, for the offence under Section 392 IPC. The Trial Court directed that the appellant be given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 395/2017 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:19.11.2025 20:28:53
accepted the prosecution version to the extent that the robbery had been committed by two persons. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 392/34 IPC, while being acquitted of the charge under Section 397 IPC.
Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 395/2017 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:19.11.2025 20:28:53
past three years. The house is registered in his brother’s name. The SIR indicates that the appellant has been working at the Ghazipur Murga Mandi for nearly 15 years, earning approximately Rs.12,000/- per month, and previously ran a fruits and vegetable rehdi. His home environment is stated to be stable, and he maintains cordial relations with neighbours and relatives, both of whom have described him as a calm, civilized and generous. The SIR also notes that the appellant, during the interview, was balanced and normal. The report records that he suffers from kidney-related ailments, blood pressure issues and diabetes, however no documents have been provided to substantiate this claim. The SIR further notes that the appellant comes from an economically modest but stable family background, with a monthly household income of approximately Rs. 15,000/-–Rs. 18,000/-, supplemented by small earnings of his children. His wife works from home as a seamstress. The locality is described as densely populated with limited amenities, but neighbours have spoken positively about the appellant’s conduct. The Probation Officer concludes that the appellant has no criminal antecedents, possesses positive social support, and shows good prospects of rehabilitation, and therefore finds him suitable for release on probation under supervision.
Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 395/2017 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:19.11.2025 20:28:53
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 & Anr., reported as (2021) 2 SCC 763 , has extended the benefits of the Probation Act even to convicts who had not completed the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years as prescribed 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.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 7
CRL. A. 395/2017
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:19.11.2025 20:28:53
sentence. The punishment provision permits the Court to award imprisonment, fine, or both. It is well settled that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 operate in harmony with the penal statute, and that the benefit of probation may be extended in all cases where the law does not expressly prohibit its application or mandate a compulsory minimum term of incarceration. In the absence of any statutory bar in respect of Section 392 IPC, this Court retains full discretion to consider the grant of probation, provided the circumstances of the case warrant the exercise of such discretion.
Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 395/2017 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:19.11.2025 20:28:53
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
ry
Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 395/2017 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:19.11.2025 20:28:53
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 392/34 IPC required interference on re-appraisal of evidence.
Whether the appellant could be released on probation despite conviction for robbery.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lakhvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶13
(2021) 2 SCC 763 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Salim
State (NCT of Delhi)
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
