Court frees convict in attack case, cites lack of education

Taking a lenient view towards a 25-year-old man, who slashed the throat of a person with a surgical blade, a court here has let him off on probation while blaming the lack of education and immaturity for the act.
The court, while refusing to send south Delhi resident Vijay Kumar behind bars, noted that he has already spent over one year in jail during the trial and a further sentence would expose him to the wrong side of the law.
"The custodial sentence would give an opportunity to him to interact with persons on the wrong side of the law.

"Thus, considering his young age and that an indirect deterrence would be there by deferring punishment, extending him the benefit of probation seems more appropriate as that would put a kind of pressure on him to be on the right side of the law," Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Jain said.
The judge said, "The lack of education and immaturity seem to be the possible reasons for all that what has happened and this period would hopefully make him responsible and sensible."
He directed the man to maintain peace and good conduct and furnish a personal bond of Rs 20,000 as well as a surety of like amount as an assurance for a period of two years.

The court, which also imposed a condition that he shall be available to receive punishment as and when circumstances arise, directed him to deposit Rs 9,500 as cost of proceedings, which will be given to victim Naushad Ansari, a tailor, as compensation.

While convicting Vijay, the court relied on the testimony of the victim and eyewitnesses, corroborated through medical evidence and a DNA report.
According to the prosecution, on January 6, 2014, Vijay attacked Ansari, slitting his throat using a surgical blade. He was taken to hospital by his employer and a complaint was lodged.
The police booked Vijay for offences of attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt under the IPC.

However, due to an unexplained motive, the court diluted the attempt to murder charge to voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
"The motive of causing injuries is conspicuously absent and the prosecution during investigation did not lay any emphasis to prove the motive," it said.
"Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC categorically suggest that there should be clear intention to kill the injured.
"However, the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive. Furthermore, admittedly as per testimony of the victim, only one blow of blade injury was given to him which was grievous in nature and not suggested to be fatal," it said.

During the trial, Vijay had denied the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated.
Seeking leniency, the convict had submitted that he was a young man and had his entire life ahead.