Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 240 of 1994 Revisionist :- Gaya Prasad Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- V.S. Kushwaha,Deepak.Dubey,R.B. Sahai,S.D.N. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgement and order dated 24.01.1994 passed by Sri S.C.Shukla, Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1993, whereby it has been modified the judgment and order dated 03.06.1993 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 519 of 1991, State vs. Gaya Prasad under Section 307 IPC, wherein revisionist was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and thereby reduced the said sentence to three years.
3. The only argument advanced is with regard to reduction of sentence on the ground that revisionist is at advanced age and this revision is pending for more than 25 years.
4. In the matter of awarding punishment multiple factors have to be considered by this Court. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of individuals as well as property of individuals is one of the essential functions of the State. The administration of criminal law justice is a mode to achieve this goal. The inherent cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice is that the punishment imposed on an offender should be adequate so as to serve the purpose of deterrence as well as reformation. It should reflect the crime, the offender has committed and should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Sentencing process should be sterned so as to give a message to the offender as well as the person like him roaming free in the society not to indulge in criminal activities but also to give a message to society that an offence if committed, would not go unpunished. The offender should be suitably punished so that society also get a message that if something wrong has been done, one will have to pay for it in proper manner irrespective of time lag.
5. Further sentencing process should be sterned but tampered with mercy where-ever it is so warranted. How and in what manner element of leniency shall prevail, will depend upon multifarious reasons including the facts and circumstances of individual case, nature of crime, the matter in which it was committed, whether preplanned or otherwise, the motive, conduct, nature of weapon used etc. But one cannot be lost sight of the fact that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system as it is bound to undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law. The society cannot long endure such serious threats. It is duty of the court to give adequate, proper and suitable sentence having regard to various aspects, some of which, are noticed above.
6. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another Vs. State of Gujrat, 2009 (7) SCC 254, the Court confirmed that:
"any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system". (Emphasis added)
7. In Jameel Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (12) SCC 532, the Court held that:
"It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence."
8. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2012 (8) SCC 734, the Court said that:
"The cry of the collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored."
9. In Gopal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (3) JT 444, the court said that:
"Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence"
10. In Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar and another, 2013 (9) SCC 516, the Court observed that:
"We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment". (Emphasis added)
11. The revisionist has not shown that punishment, awarded by court below, is unjust, arbitrary or otherwise illegal. However, what it is trying to take advantage is that the act of the Court should come to his rescue inasmuch as it is this Court which has taken two decades and more and taking up this revision and this should come to rescue of the revisionist for making reduction in punishment drastically though otherwise what has been done by the court below cannot be said per- se illegal, unjust or improper. It is well settled that the act of the court prejudice none. The failure of this court in taking up these matters within the reasonable time should not become a hand to the offender like present one to claim reduction in the punishment as a matter of right ignoring the fact that the society requires that an offender should be punished adequately and over the above the victim, who has suffered, is waiting for its own rights in having the offender punished suitably, even if the system of justice takes a long time. The delay in Courts cannot become a factor to convert and accused as a victim ignoring all the rights of the actual victim, who has suffered, his family and the society in shown. Moreover, when the finding of guilty and punishment imposed by the court below is not found erroneous in any manner. I am of the view that such an order of the courts below cannot be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
12. Dismissed.
13. The accused, Gaya Prasad is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall cause him to be arrested and lodge in jail to serve out the sentence passed against him. The compliance shall be prepared within two months.
14. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 KA