New Delhi: Two men have been sent to three years in jail for breaking into a person's house to commit theft by a Delhi court which refused to take a lenient view towards them observing such offences are on the rise and there was need for "deterrent effect".
Metropolitan Magistrate Ashok Kumar handed down the jail term to Bunty and Bobby for the offences under Section 457 (house-breaking by night in order to commit offence) read with 34 (common intention) of IPC.
"Convicts don't deserve too much leniency and sentencing them merely up to the period undergone and giving them benefit of probation would be overlooking the gravity of the offence."
"I am not in favour of releasing them on probation as such offences are increasing day by day in alarming numbers and deterrent effect must be shown to prospective evil elements," the magistrate said.
The court also said that the conduct of the duo in entering the house of complainant Gaje Singh in south Delhi here in odd hours with an intention to commit theft was very serious in nature.
The court, while observing that the purpose of sentencing is a balancing act, said, "On one hand, punishment should be sufficient to deter accused not to repeat offence and become a good member in society. On the other hand,punishment shouldn't be too harsh resulting in accused becoming hardcore criminal."
The court, while holding the duo guilty of the offence, relied on the testimony of the complainant and rejected the contention of convicts regarding contradictions in statements.
According to the prosecution, late at night on October 18, 2011, Bunty and Bobby entered the house of Singh "in a clandestine manner" to commit theft, but were apprehended by him and his neighbour and were handed over to the police.
The court said that there were minor contradictions but the incident took place in 2011 and the evidence was recorded in 2015, so it can be attributed to mere lapse of memory and "no person should be expected to have a razor sharp memory".
It also also rejected the contention of defence counsel that there were no independent witnesses to corroborate the version of the complainant and said, "It's is a well known fact that people are reluctant to be made part of litigation as they are too busy in their daily struggle".
During the trial, the duo had pleaded not guilty and claimed they were falsely implicated.
The court, however, rejected their claim saying they could not prove false implication as there was no motive for Singh to do so.
