Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1385 of 2007
Revisionist :- Jai Karan Singh And Others Opposite Party :- Satae Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- B.S. Rathore
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Government Advocate
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
Heard Sri B.S. Rathore learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Fatehpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2006 (Jai Karan Singh and others V/s State & another) convicting and sentencing the Revisionists under Section 148 I.P.C. to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine the Revisionists shall undergo one month additional simple imprisonment, under Section 323/149 I.P.C. to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00/- in default of payment of the Revisionists shall undergo 15 days additional simple imprisoment, under Section 504 I.P.C. to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine the Revisionists shall undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment, under Section 506 I.P.C. to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each of them, all the sentence shall run concurrently and the order dated 03.0.42006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Fatehpur in Case No. 130 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 149, 504 and 506 I.P.C. registered as Case Crime No. 16 of 1969, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Fatehpur convicting the applicants under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentencing then to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- each, sentencing to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 148 I.P.C., sentencing them for to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 323, read with Section 149 I.P.C., to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- each under Section 504 and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each under Section 506 I.P.C. Sentences were to run concurrently and on failure to deposit fine the applicants were directed to undergo three months further imprisonment each.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicants and other co-accuseds are stated to have caused injuries to the informant & othres on 03.04.1999 at about 09:30 p.m. by Lathi-danda and made 3-4 rounds of firing, abused them and threatened them of life. A First Information Report was lodged on the next date at about 02.05 a.m.
After investigation chargesheet under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was submitted against the applicants and other co-accuseds who were tried under Sections 147, 148, 323 read with section 149, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The witnesses of the prosecution were examined. The statement of co-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the alleged implication on account of enmity in this case. Accused Ram Karan stated that initially his nephew, Dhirendra, was beaten by Dharam Pal and when he went to the house of Baijnath he was beaten by Baijnath and another. Baijnath Singh is his real uncle and in 1988 he had filed a Civil Case against him and has won the case. He has been falsely implicated in the case alongwith other co-accuseds. The trial court found that from the evidence on record the allegations against the applicants and other co-accuseds stand proved and therefore they are liable to be punished under Sections 147, 148, 323 read with Sections 149, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced. The lower appellate court has partly modified the judgment and order of the trial court.
Aggrieved by the judgments of both the courts below this Criminal Revision has been preferred by the accuseds. During the pendency of this revision accused applicant no. 4, Raj Karan Singh, has died.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that prior to the impugned implication the accuseds were never involved in any crime and their remaining sentence may be reduced to sentence undergone and fine may be imposed upon the applicant since a very long time has lapsed since the date of incident which took place in the year 1999.
A perusal of the records shows that the occurrence took place on 03.04.1999, trial court passed the judgment on 03.04.2006 and appellate court passed the judgment on 08.05.2007. In the mean-time, co-accused, Raj Karan Singh has died. During the pendency of this revision more than 19 years have passed. Despite the fact that the crime is affront to the human dignity, the argument of the 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 an over all consideration of the facts and situation and also the time lag in between, the Court is of the view that sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicants for offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 504 and 506 I.P.C. be reduced to the period undergone and each revisionist is directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each before the trial court and on receipt of the same, the same shall be released proportionately in favour of the victims. If any of them had died then the payment shall be made to his legal heirs.
The judgments and order of the courts below are modified to that extent. The revision is partly allowed.
Order Date: 26.07.2018 Rohit