Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 45 of 2010 Appellant :- Dinesh Verma And Others Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- N.I. Jafri,Mohd Shahanshah Alam Ansari,Sadaful Islam Jafri Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.
Advocate,Amarnath Tripathi,I.K.Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. By this criminal appeal, accused-appellants have challenged the judgement and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by Additional District & Session Judge / Fast Track Court No. 1, Ghazipur in Session Trial No.388 of 2004 (State vs. Dinesh Verma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.103 of 2003, under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 308/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Suhwal, District Ghazipur by which accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C., 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default clause. The appellants have been acquitted by the trial court under Sections 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C.
2. During trial, the accused-appellants were charged under the aforesaid sections to which they denied the charges and claimed trial.
3. The learned trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the prosecution case proved against the appellants and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred the present criminal appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the accused- appellants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the appellants are not pressing the appeal on merit, rather he pressed the appeal on the point of sentence only. Although the appellants are innocent and they have been in jail for a considerable period during investigation and trial. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that parties have entered into a compromise and they are living happily in the same village and they do not want to contest the appeal. He further states that the sentence of appellants may be reduced to fine only to which learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have no objection. Learned counsel for the informant admitted the factum of compromise the matter. It is further submitted that rigorous imprisonment of 3 years has been awarded to the appellants which is highly excessive.
7. Considering the judgement of trial court, I am of the view that trial court's judgement is well discussed and appeal lacks merit.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, admittedly, the incident of this case is of year 2003 and more than 18 years has elapsed. The appellants are facing trial as well as appeal. It is obvious that during these years, they have suffered a great mental agony and harassment. They must have also incurred expenses defending themselves during the entire period.
9. Looking all these circumstances and facts that parties have entered into a compromise, while considering the question of sentence, I feel it appropriate to reduce the sentence of accused- appellants.
10. 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 offence and the manner in which, it was executed or committed. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and 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 individual but also against society to which criminal and victim belong.
11. Keeping in view the nature of allegation, applying the principles laid down in the different judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it is committed, factum of compromise among both the parties but I, modify the impugned order of sentence in the following manner :-
(i) Conviction of accused-appellant under Section 323/34, 325/34 I.P.C. is maintained.
(ii) Accused-appellants are sentenced to substantive imprisonment of already undergone with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 325/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. which shall be deposited within a period of two months. If it is not deposited within time, Trial Court shall take necessary action for its recovery.
12. Criminal appeal is disposed of with above terms.
13. Certify the judgement along with the lower court record, if any, to the court concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Manoj