Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3260 of 2006 Revisionist :- Harish Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Vashisth,Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri S.S. Shah, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2001 passed by the VIIth A.C.J.M., Meerut in Criminal Case No.2178 of 1999, State Vs. Babu Lal and others, under Section 498A, IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act as well as judgment and order dated 5.6.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2001, Harish Chand Vs. State of U.P., whereby the magistrate convicted the appellant and two others for an offence under Section 498A, IPC and directed to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- against each of the accused. The appellate court acquitted rest of the two accused, but upheld the conviction of the revisionist. It has further been directed that in default of payment of fine, the revisionist would further undergo additional imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
From the material on record it is clear that the applicant belongs to the deprived section of Sweepers. The alleged incident is stated to be of the year 1996. The informant alleged that she was turned out of her matrimonial home three years back because the demand of dowry could not be met.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the trial court acquitted the other co-accuseds of the offence under Section 498A, IPC while the applicant was singled out for conviction in this case when the evidence was common against all the accused persons. The material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses were there, but neither the trial court considered nor the appellate court considered the same. Both the courts have failed to consider that there was three years delay in lodging of the FIR and the conviction and sentencing of the revisionist was not justified in the present case. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was never involved in any crime. The two co- accuseds, who were similarly charge sheeted, have been acquitted and since a very long time has lapsed from the date of occurrence, it would not be justified to send the revisionist to jail again.
Perusal of the record shows that the offence alleged is of around the year 1996. The trial court passed the judgment on 7.2.2001 and the appellate court has rejected the appeal of the revisionist on 5.6.2006. About 19 years have passed and despite the fact that crime is affront to the human dignity, the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist merits consideration.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has urged all the Courts time and again to exercise this power liberally which was intended to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system and to meet the ends of justice in a better way. In Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551 the Supreme Court urged all courts to exercise their power under Sec. 357 Cr.P.C. liberally to safeguard the interests of the victim. In this case, the victim and his relatives were attacked by seven persons in the field. The victim received severe head injuries which impaired his speech permanently. The accused were convicted by trial court under Sec.s 307, 323 and 325 of IPC read with Sec. 149 and sentenced to imprisonment for three to four years. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two accused and quashed the conviction of other five accused under Sec. 307/149 IPC, but maintained their conviction under Sec. 325/149 IPC. The accused persons were granted probation and each was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2500/- to victim. On appeal, the Supreme Court did not disturb the sentence of imprisonment but ordered the accused persons to jointly pay a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim under Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C. recording following reasons: It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto.
This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way.
In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 the Supreme Court went a step further and observed that the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. While the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused. Capacity of the accused to pay which constitutes an important aspect of any order Under Sec.357 Code of Criminal Procedure would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary unless of course the facts as emerging in the course of the trial are so clear that the court considers it unnecessary to do so. Such an enquiry can precede an order on sentence to enable the court to take a view, both on the question of sentence and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or his/her family.
In K.A. Abbas H.S.A. v. Sabu Joseph, (2010) 6 SCC 230 the Apex Court made it clear that the whole purpose of the provision is to accommodate the interests of the victims in the criminal justice system. Sometimes the situation becomes such that no purpose is served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead directing the accused to pay an amount of compensation to the victim or affected party can ensure delivery of total justice. Therefore, this grant of compensation is sometimes in lieu of sending a person behind bars or in addition to a very light sentence of imprisonment.
Having overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the time lapsed and also the fact that the revisionist belongs to a very poor section of society, the sentence of imprisonment of the revisionist under Section 498A, IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. To further meet the ends of justice, fine of Rs.20,000/- is directed to be paid to the victim as compensation. The revisionist, Harish Chand, is directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- before the trial court and the same shall be released in favour of Smt. Suresh. Any amount of fine already deposited shall be adjusted. In case of failure to deposit of the amount, the revisionist shall be required to serve the remaining sentence.
In view of the above, the judgment and order of the trial court is modified to the extent stated above. This revision is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 T. Sinha