Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1094 of 2004 Appellant :- Mangey Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri S.K. Srivastava and Smt. Alka Srivastava, advocates on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.2.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Court No.5, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.1478 of 2000 (State Vs. Mangey) convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 323 IPC for a period of six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
During the course of argument, only submission made on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel is that punishment imposed upon the appellant is too harsh. Specific prayer was made before the trial court to extend the benefit of first offender to the appellant, but the same was not allowed on the ground that injured was an advocate. Referring to the aforesaid fact, it is further argued that appellant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to deposit the fine amount if sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial court is converted into fine. Appellant was in jail for some period in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that he has to say nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays that the custodial punishment awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone in jail. Punishment imposed upon the appellant was for only six months simple imprisonment. The alleged occurrence pertains to the year 1995 and the appeal is pending since 2004. Hence, prayer for leniency in imposing the sentence upon the appellant has been made.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that trial court itself has adopted lenient view. No further leniency is required in the matter. It was further submitted that if appellant is set at liberty on the basis of imprisonment already undergone, purpose of imposing proper and adequate sentence would defeat the very object which would also not meet the ends of justice.
I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2004, appellant was convicted for the offence under section 323 IPC and a sentence of six months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.200/- was imposed upon him. In default of payment of fine, 15 days' additional imprisonment was also ordered. Although, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order on point of conviction of the appellant, yet I have carefully and minutely perused the entire evidence and does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the trial court regarding conviction of the appellant. Since learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument to decide the appeal on the basis of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant, hence Court also confines the discussion to that extent only.
So far as the imposition of proper and adequate sentence is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.
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].
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.
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."
Since there is no criminal antecedents of the appellant, incident took place in the year 1995, appeal is pending since 2004, appellant was facing trial for the offence under 307, 323, 506 IPC, he was in custody for some period and after perusing the judgment impugned, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail with the fine already imposed by the trial court.
In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him in jail with the fine imposed by the trial court. Fine amount be deposited before the trial court within a period of three months.
Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of sentence only as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained.
Let a copy of the judgment alongwith lower court record be sent to the court concerned for information and compliance.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 ss