Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 134 of 2008
Appellant :- Collector Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- R.B. Gaur
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
1. In this case, though lower court record is not available, yet with the consent of learned counsel for appellant, Court is proceeding to decide the appeal. Appellant has been enlarged on bail on 10.01.2008.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Collector Singh against the judgement and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No.8, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No.
345 of 2004 (case crime no. 97 of 2003) convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation.
3. The facts of the case, as unfolded in the written report dated 14.05.2003 submitted to the police station concerned and as disclosed in the impugned judgment and order, are that two days' back accused-appellant had demanded money from the informant for purchasing wine but informant denied. Due to which accused-appellant extended threat to him. On 12.05.2003 when at about 07:00 hours informant was going towards his garden, accused-appellant met him at the door of Veerpal and told that he had not given money to him to purchase the liquor and saying this fact took out the country made pistol and opened fire upon informant which hit him in his left thigh. On raising alarm by the informant, his son Ram Krishna, Ramesh Kumar, Radhey Shyam and other villagers came there. It is also prosecution case that by opening fire, accused-appellant left the place of occurrence.
4. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-1), chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-5) was registered at Police Station concerned on 14.05.2003 mentioning all the details as had been described. G.D. entry was also made at the same time.
5. Investigation was started in the matter by the Investigating Officer. He has recorded statement of witnesses. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. ka-7). Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth is Ext. Ka-8. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka- 10) against the accused appellant was filed. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance. The case being exclusively triable by sessions court, was committed to the Court of sessions.
6. Accused appeared and charge for the offence under Sections 307 IPC, was framed in the trial court against the appellant. The accused denied the charge framed against him and claimed for trial.
7. Trial proceeded, and in order to prove its case, prosecution examined, six witnesses, namely, PW-1 Ram Swaroop, informant PW-2 Ram Krishna, PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, PW-4 Dr. Rajnish Kumar, PW-5 Dr. R.K. Awasthi, PW-6 Constable Mahesh Pal Singh.
8. After closure of evidence, statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused appellant denied the entire prosecution story and stated that charge sheet was submitted on the basis of false facts. Neither any injury was received by the injured nor accused appellant caused any injury. He was falsely implicated in this case. In his defence, accused- appellant has examined Krishna Pal as DW-1.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, trial court has found that the prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charge for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. only against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as above hence this appeal.
10. I have heard Shri R.B. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record carefully.
11. Castigating the impugned judgement and order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appeal be disposed of at this stage itself without calling the lower court record on the basis of period already undergone. No other argument was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant on merits.
12. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the matter in accordance with law. Since sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is only for two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, no further leniency could be extended to the accused-appellant.
13. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
14. In the present matter, learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not advance any argument assailing the conviction of the accused-appellant and confined his argument to the sentence imposed upon the accused-appellant only, therefore, court is proceeding to analyze the submission raised on behalf of appellant in light of settled propositions of law.
15. In the present matter, although charge was framed for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. yet trial court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant only for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order also reveals that in this matter accused-appellant was in custody for about fourteen months during trial. The impugned judgment and order was passed on 15.12.2007. Appellant was granted bail on 10.01.2008 meaning thereby near about fifteen months have been served by him in the present matter against sentence imposed upon him.
16. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is the obligation of the court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide : (Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323, Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731, M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, Ravji v.
State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175].
17. In view of the above propositions of law, the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
18. The Apex Court in the case of G. V. Siddaramesh Versus of State of Karnataka; 2010 (87) AIC 43 (SC), while allowing the appeal of the appellant, altered the sentence. Paragraph 31 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
"31. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 304-B I. P. C. However, his sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Courts below appears to us to be excessive. The appellant is a young man and has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment after being convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. We are of the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B, I. P. C., reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are confirmed."
19. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgements and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that no minimum sentence has been provided in the Indian Penal Code for the offence under Section 324 IPC and in this case the appellant has served-out about fifteen months of the sentence against two years sentence imposed upon him, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the appellant awarded to him under Section 324 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and also imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by trial court which shall be deposited by the appellant with the trial Court within three months from today. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment.
20. In the light of foregoing discussions, this appeal is liable to be allowed in part and the conviction of the accused appellant Collector Singh under Section 324 IPC is liable to be upheld but, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 regarding sentence is liable to be modified to the extent as discussed above.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is upheld but the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant shall stand reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. A fine of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed upon the appellant, which shall be deposited with the trial Court within three months from today. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment. Any amount already deposited towards fine shall be adjusted.
22. Let a copy of this judgement along with lower court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur for compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018//Sanjeet