Reserved on 22.11.2018 Delivered on 19.12.2018
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8038 of 2006
Appellant :- Patra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,A.B.L.Gaur,Arvind Agrawal,Ashutosh Pratap Singh,Nazrul Islam Jafri, Ram Pal Singh Rajpoot, S.V.Singh, Saurabh Gaur
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
(By Om Prakash-VII, J.)
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants against judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Etah in Session Trial No. 682 of 2004 (State vs. Patra and others) convicting and sentencing appellants Patra, Jafar, Bachchu and Sabbar for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, for the offence under Section 363 IPC for five years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, for the offence under Section 201 IPC for five years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Above sentences have been awarded with default stipulation. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Facts of case, in nutshell, as unfolded by informant Chhotey Khan son of Noor Mohammad, resident of Yadav Nagar, Police Station Awagarh, District Etah in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.'), are that on 10/11.10.2003 his daughter aged about 15 years had gone to listen Qawwali with her mother and elder sister in Urs Mela of Mohabbat Shah in Kasba Awagarh. At about 02:00 a.m. accused-appellants called deceased that she was being called by her father. Informants' wife and daughter thought that deceased might have gone to her father. In the morning, wife and daughter of informant asked him about deceased.
Whereupon informant and other persons of Mohalla started search for her. When she could not be traced out, he went to police station Awagarh on 11.10.2003 at about 07:00 p.m. to lodge the report. The police sent him back by saying that they all are tired due to fair duty and asked him to come next morning. On the next day at about 02:00 p.m. he again went to lodge report at police station Awagarh but his report was not lodged and he was sent back with the direction to make search for his daughter. At about 03:00 p.m. some persons of Awagarh informed him about a dead body of a girl in the filed of village Rudrapur hanging on a Neem tree, thereupon informant along with other persons went there and found dead body of her daughter hanging on a tree by her dupatta. Leaving dead body in same position, informant went to lodge report at police station concerned. It was also contained in the report that accused persons have hanged his daughter on tree after killing her near village Rudrapur bringing her from Awagarh.
3. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-1) chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-6) was registered at Police Station concerned on the same date and time mentioning all details as had been disclosed in Ext. Ka-6.
G.D. entry Ext. Ka-7 was also made at the same time.
4. Investigation of the matter was initially conducted by Sub Inspector Ahibaran Singh of police station Eka, District Firozabad. He reached the spot, recorded statements of witnesses, prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-8 along with other relevant papers i.e. challan lash, photo lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-11 to Ka-14) and sent dead body to mortuary District Hospital, Firozabad for post mortem. He also took into possession one dupatta, sandle, socks and shawl found near the dead body and after sealing the same prepared memo Ext. Ka-9. Since place of incident was related to police station Awagarh, investigation of the case was transferred to police station Awagarh. Thereafter investigation was conducted by Station Officer Sitaram Dwivedi. He recorded statement of witnesses, prepared site plan Ext. Ka-3 of the place from where deceased was enticed away by accused-appellants. After transfer of Investigating Officer, remaining investigation was conducted by Station Officer A. K. Nigam.
5. Post-mortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 13.10.2003 at 01:30 p.m.. Autopsy report is Ext. Ka-2. As per post mortem report, rigor mortis passed in upper extremities present in lower extremities. Vaginal tear present. Clotted blood present outside the vagina on right labia majava. Bleeding from both nostrils present. On examination following ante-mortem injuries were found.
“Ligature mark 29 X 4 cm on upper part of neck situated between chin and neck (upper part) margins are irregular & congested. Base is parchment-like and grooved. Ligature mark interrupted at back of neck.”
6. In the opinion of doctor, death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.
7. After completing investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-4) was filed against accused persons. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance and case being exclusively triable by sessions court was committed to Court of sessions.
8. All accused appellants appeared and initially charge under Sections 363, 302 and 201 IPC was framed on 24.05.2005 against them. After perusal of post mortem report an additional charge for the offence 376 IPC was also framed on 23.11.2005. All the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.
9. Trial proceeded and on behalf of prosecution, seven witnesses, namely, PW-1 Chhotey Khan, PW-2 Smt. Poosi, PW-3 Dr. S.S. Chhabra, PW-4 Head Constable Bheem Sen, PW-5 Station Officer A. K. Nigam, PW-6 Constable Veer Pratap Singh and PW-7 Sub Inspector Ahibaran Singh were examined.
10. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused appellants under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which they denied prosecution case. They have specifically stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. Witnesses have deposed against them due to partibandi. No oral or documentary evidence has been led by them in their defence.
11. Trial Court has found that prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced accused appellants, as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
12. We have heard Shri S.V. Singh, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. appearing for State at length.
13. Castigating the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that FIR was lodged belatedly but no plausible explanation has been given for the same. Appellants are innocent and have not committed present offence. Date, time and place of occurrence have not been proved. It appears improbable and unbelievable that all appellants had gone to call the deceased but no effort was made by PW-2 to search her. There are major contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses on the point as to who called the deceased from Urs Mela. Medical evidence does not support oral version. Nothing is on record to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC. Findings recorded by Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are illegal and perverse. Prosecution case is not supported by any independent witness. Motive is not proved against accused-appellants. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Chain of circumstances are not linked with each other to form and irresistible opinion against accused-appellants. Investigation is perfunctory. It was lastly submitted that impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.
14. In reply, learned AGA appearing for State supporting the impugned judgment and order has submitted that deceased along with PW-2 and her mother had gone to Urs Mela and she was listening Qawwali. During course of Qawwali at about 02:00 a.m. in the night all accused-appellants came there and took the deceased along with them on the pretext that she was called by her father. Thereafter, she was not seen at any place and her dead body was received on 12.10.2003 hanging on a Neem tree. Medical evidence fully supports oral version. There is sufficient evidence adduced by prosecution to support the charge for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Finding recorded by Trial Court about guilt of accused-appellants are based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. Although no specific motive has been shown in the FIR yet deceased was done to death by committing rape against her. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case motive itself reveals against accused-appellants. PW-2 who was present in Urs Mela along with deceased at initial stage has clearly supported the prosecution case. Minor contradictions on some points elucidated during argument by learned counsel for appellants and laches on the part of Investigating Officer are also not material in the present matter as they do not go to root of the case. PW-1 informant had gone to the house of accused-appellants to know whereabouts of deceased but they were absconding. Thus, all the circumstances proved by prosecution clearly form a complete chain and same are linked with each other. There in no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order warranting interference by this Court.
15. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have perused entire record carefully.
16. In the present matter, as is evident from record, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. In the intervening night of 10 /11.10.2003 deceased had gone to listen Qawwali in Urs Mela along with her mother and elder sister. As per prosecution, at about 02:00 a.m. in the night during programme of Quawai all accused-appellants came there and called the deceased on the pretext that she was being called by her father. She went along with accused-appellants but did not return. It is also a case of prosecution that when PW-1 and her mother returned back to house and did not find deceased there, they disclosed entire facts to PW-1, father of deceased. It appears that after receiving information, PW-1 started search of deceased and he also went to the house of accused-appellants but neither deceased nor accused-appellants were found there. It has also come that informant on the next date in the morning tried to lodge FIR but concerned police did not lodge the same and returned the informant directing him to make search. On 12.10.2003 at about 03:00 p.m. dead body of deceased was found hanging at the place of occurrence within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Eka, District Firozabad. F.I.R. was lodged at police station Eka on 12.10.2003 by the informant against accused-appellants and later on, as mentioned above, case was transferred to police station Awagarh, District Etah. Trial was concluded by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Etah. As mentioned above, initially charge was framed against accused appellants for the offence under Sections 363, 302 and 201 IPC and later-on on 23.11.2005, charge for the offence unde Section 376 IPC was also framed. Though PW-1 was initially examined on 12.9.2005 yet his fresh examination was started on 20.12.2005 on the basis of modified charge.
17. Now, in light of above factual background and also the findings recorded by Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order, Court proceeds to deal with submissions raised by learned counsel for parties.
18. As regards submission regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, in this matter, initially deceased was said to be taken by accused appellants in the intervening night of 10/11.10.2003 from Urs Mela on the pretext that she was being called by her father. Neither she returned to Mela nor to her house. When PW-2 and her mother returned her house and did not find deceased there, they disclosed the entire facts to PW-1, father of deceased at about 4.00 a.m. in the night. Search was started by PW-1 but she could not be traced out. As per prosecution, PW-1 tried to lodge F.I.R. on 11.10.2003 and 12.10.2003 but at about 3.00 p.m. on 12.10.2003 dead body of deceased was found hanging on a tree in village Rudrapur. On information, informant went there and saw dead body of deceased and thereafter he got prepared written report Ext. ka-1 and moved the same at Police Station Eka, District Firozabad. F.I.R. was lodged on 12.10.2003 at 16.40 hours. Though there was no missing report yet from the prosecution evidence it reveals that PW-1 has made effort to lodge F.I.R. but same was not lodged. In this matter, F.I.R. was lodged within few hours of receiving the dead body of deceased. If facts and circumstances of the case are analyzed in light of settled law, in the present matter F.I.R. cannot be said to be lodged belatedly. PW-1 was making search of deceased. He also informed to local police. If report at initial stage about missing of deceased was not lodged by the police concerned, there is no fault on the part of informant PW-1 rather fault appears on the part of police. Prosecution case on this score cannot be disbelieved. It may be mentioned that prosecution case solely on the basis of delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be discarded and other evidence led by prosecution has to be analyzed.
19. So far as motive is concerned, it is an essential ingredient to constitute the crime. Though we are oblivious of fact that motive relegates into back ground in a case of direct ocular testimony and is not of much significance, but where motive is false and cooked up, then it assumes importance to test veracity or other wise of prosecution witnesses. Although nothing has been mentioned in the F.I.R. on this issue yet F.I.R. shows that deceased was taken by accused appellants from Urs Mela on the pretext that she was called by her father. Medical evidence shows that after gang rape, she was hanged. In the facts and circumstance of the case, non-mentioning of specific motive in the F.I.R. is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution evidence. Hence, finding recorded by Trial Court on this issue is not interferable.
20. As far as medical evidence is concerned, PW-3 has clearly stated that deceased was done to death by strangulation. As per statement of PW-3, ligature mark on the neck of deceased was also found. He has clearly stated that there was every possibility that before committing murder of deceased, she was raped. A perusal of post mortem report shows that vaginal tears were present and clotted blood were also present. This fact has specifically been explained by PW-3 and he has stated that vagina was found torn and this was ante mortem injury. If statement of PW-3 and facts mentioned in post mortem report are taken together with the submissions raised at the Bar and compared with the findings recorded by Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order, it can safely be held that medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. Finding recorded by Trial Court in this regard in the impugned judgment and order is based on correct appreciation of evidence. Trial Court has rightly concluded that oral version of prosecution witnesses finds support with medical evidence.
21. Now, we have to consider whether judgment of conviction passed by Trial Court can be sustained in law. While dealing with said conviction based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused, which would mean that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of Court. In this case, though prosecution has not examined the mother of deceased, who had also gone alongwith deceased and PW-2 in Urs Mela but PW-2, elder sister of deceased, has clearly supported the prosecution case. PW-1 was not present in Mela. Deceased was taken at 2.00 a.m.. PW-2 has stated that she made search of the deceased in the Mela and when she did not return at about 3.30 a.m. and she did not find her, they returned to house. She has also stated that all accused appellants had come in Urs Mela to call the deceased. When deceased left Mela, all accused appellants were with the deceased – victim girl. Neither she returned in Mela nor in the house. This fact has been established from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-1. Missing of deceased was disclosed by PW-2 to PW-1 in the same night at about 4.00 a.m. Though intervening period between missing of deceased and recovery of her dead body is more than one day yet statement of PW-1 clearly shows that he was making search of deceased but he could not see her at any other place. If statement of accused appellants under Section 313 CrPC are taken into consideration, nothing has come out that deceased was seen at any other place alongwith any other person during intervening period. Dead body of deceased was seen on 12.10.2003 at 3.00 p.m.. Symptoms found on the body of deceased clearly reveal that after committing offence of rape against her, she was done to death and thereafter only to create suspicion she was hanged on Neem tree. Trial Court after analyzing the entire evidence was of the view that the circumstances established by prosecution are firm, cogent and believable. If findings recorded by Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order about chain of circumstances said to have been established by prosecution are analyzed with the statement of prosecution witnesses, no illegality or infirmity is found in the said findings.
22. For ready reference, paragraphs no.17 to 23 of Majenderan Langeswaran Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 192 are quoted below.
"17. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, this Court observed as under:
"10. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
18. In Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, this Court opined as under:
"10. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, we shall at the threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the offence in question and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 SCC 351).
19. In C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. vs. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, this Court while considering a case of conviction based on the circumstantial evidence, held as under:
"21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case the courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence."
20. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172, this Court again considered the case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence and held as under:
"26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. (See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005) 7 SCC 603)."
21. In the case of Sattatiya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210, this Court held as under:
“10. We have thoughtfully considered the entire matter. It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
This Court further observed in the aforesaid decision that:
17. At this stage, we also deem it proper to observe that in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court will be extremely loath to upset the judgment of conviction which is confirmed in appeal. However, if it is found that the appreciation of evidence in a case, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, is vitiated by serious errors and on that account miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, then the Court will certainly interfere even with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court - Bharat v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether in the present case the prosecution succeeded in establishing the chain of circumstances leading to an inescapable conclusion that the appellant had committed the crime.
22. In the case of State of Goa vs. Pandurang Mohite, (2008) 16 SCC 714, this Court reiterated the settled law that where a conviction rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
23. It would be appropriate to consider some of the recent decisions of this Court in cases where conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. In the case of G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593, this Court elaborately dealt with the subject and held as under:
23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court."
23. Similar view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 4 SCC
37 as well as in Brajendrasingh vs. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 289.
24. Thus, on the basis of law laid down in aforementioned cases it may be mentioned that the rule which needs to be observed by the court while dealing with cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The court has to examine complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial.
25. In this case, circumstances established by prosecution about going of deceased alongwith accused appellants in the intervening night of 10/11.10.2003 at about 2.00 a.m. from Urs Mela is fully established and statement of PW-1 on this point is cogent, firm and believable. Deceased was also not seen at any other place alongwith any other person during intervening period but her dead body was found hanging at the place of occurrence on 12.10.2003 at 3.00 p.m.. Medical evidence clearly reveals that deceased was done to death by strangulation after committing rape against her. Thus, peculiar facts and circumstances of the case clearly reveal that deceased was done to death after committing rape by accused appellants, who had taken the deceased in the intervening night of 10 / 11.10.2003 alongwith them at 2.00 a.m.. Other circumstances also form a complete chain to draw presumption against accused-appellants that they and they only have committed murder of deceased. Circumstances from which inference of guilt of accused is to be drawn have been cogently and firmly established by prosecution from its evidence and they are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused. Chain of circumstances is also complete.
26. So far as omissions, contradictions and laches are concerned, accused appellants had ample opportunity for cross examination and in fact they had made a lengthy cross examination from the witnesses on all points. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others; 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC) Court held that "prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." Further, in Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124, Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. If the settled legal propositions of law are taken into consideration in light of facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission raised by learned counsel for the appellants on the point of omission, contradictions, and laches on the part of the Investigating Officer, we are of the view that the same do not go to root of the case nor create doubt about truthfulness of the version of PW-2. Date, time and place of occurrence established by prosecution can also not be doubted on that ground. Hence, submission made by learned counsel for appellants in this regard are not acceptable.
27. So far as 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.
28. 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. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. 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 victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. 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, enormity of 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].
29. In view of above propositions of law, the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence.
30. Hence, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we are of the view that the Trial Court has imposed minimum sentence for the offences under Section 302 IPC. Sentences imposed for other offences are also not excessive or exorbitant. Hence, in our considered opinion, sentence awarded to the appellants is adequate and proportionate to gravity of offence and no interference is required by this Court in this regard.
31. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, under which the present offence has been committed, we are of the view that impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by Trial Court is well thought and well discussed and Trial Court has rightly held that prosecution has succeeded to prove guilt of accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. As such, impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be upheld and appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.
32. Accordingly present criminal appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence imposed upon accused appellants vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 is affirmed.
33. Copy of this judgment alongwith lower court record be sent forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Etah for compliance. Compliance report be also submitted to this Court.
Order date: 19.12.2018
safi