Conviction Stands, But Jail Is Not the Answer After 27 Years: Delhi High Court Releases Youth Offender on Probation Citing Reformative Justice

“Crime Is a Pathological Aberration, Not a Permanent Stain”— In a significant judgment addressing both the evidentiary weight of eyewitness testimony and the relevance of reformative justice in long-pending cases, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Mohd. Sajid under Sections 452, 324, and 506(ii) IPC for unlawful house trespass, assault with a firearm, and criminal intimidation, but modified the sentence by releasing him on probation for one year.

Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, while delivering judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2003, held that although the conviction was based on reliable evidence, the passage of over 27 years since the incident, along with the accused’s clean antecedents and family circumstances, called for a reformative, rather than retributive, approach to sentencing.

“A Nominal Delay in Identification Does Not Vitiate an Otherwise Consistent Eyewitness Account”

The incident, which occurred on the night of 18 July 1998, involved the appellant entering the complainant’s home armed with a country-made pistol, threatening the occupants, and discharging the firearm. The bullet narrowly missed the complainant, with gunpowder entering his eye.

Two key eyewitnesses—PW-2, the complainant's daughter, and PW-10, the complainant himself—described the sequence of events in detail. PW-2 positively identified the appellant, stated how she diverted the gun’s barrel, and how the accused was eventually caught and handed over to the police with the weapon and cartridges.

While PW-10 could not identify the appellant in court due to the passage of time, he had identified him contemporaneously at the time of the offence. The Court held:

“PW-2 and PW-10 are the material witnesses of the case and have supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 has identified the appellant. PW-5, PW-6, and PW-11 have also identified the appellant who was handed over to them by PW-10 and was arrested at the spot.”

The Court rejected the defence's argument that non-identification by one witness rendered the case doubtful. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Ors., the Court observed:

“The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law... The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely.”

Thus, the conviction was upheld based on consistent and corroborated witness accounts and scientific evidence, including the FSL report confirming the weapon and cartridges were covered under the Arms Act.

“Rehabilitation Over Retribution Must Guide Sentencing in Long-Pending Matters”

Having affirmed the conviction, the High Court turned its attention to sentencing, where it took a nuanced and humanistic approach. The Court noted:

“At the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant was about 18-19 years of age... he is now 42, married with six minor children, and the sole earning member of his family.”

The appellant had no prior or subsequent criminal record and had already spent about 15 days in custody. The Court observed that the case had remained pending for over two decades, and further incarceration at this stage would disproportionately impact not only the appellant but also his dependents.

Citing a series of Supreme Court rulings, including:

• Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287

• Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1104

• K. Pounammal v. State, 2025 INSC 1014

the Court affirmed the increasingly accepted reformative approach to sentencing. Particularly from Mohammad Giasuddin, the following principle was emphasised:

“The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defence.”

The Court also relied on K. Pounammal, where the Supreme Court had laid down that sentencing must consider a “variety of factors including the time elapsed since the offence, age, family circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation.”

Accordingly, while affirming the appellant's guilt, the High Court modified the sentence by ordering release on probation for one year, subject to a bond of ₹10,000 and one surety:

“The sentence awarded vide order dated 19th April, 2003 is modified to the extent that the appellant is directed to be released on probation of good conduct... for a period of one year... and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the said period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour.”

Upholding Conviction, Tempering Sentence

This case exemplifies the Court’s attempt to balance legal culpability with social justice, particularly where the wheels of justice have turned exceedingly slowly.

Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta’s judgment underscores that the “conviction and sentence have their respective realms”—while conviction is based on law and evidence, sentencing must reflect the lived realities of the accused, the passage of time, and the modern trend in jurisprudence that leans toward reformation over retribution.

The appellant’s release on probation, without erasing the conviction, serves both as a deterrent for the crime committed and a chance for reintegration, reflecting a mature, compassionate, and legally sound approach to criminal justice.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025