Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 945 of 1994 Revisionist :- T.B.Singh and others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- G.P. Dixit, Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for revisionists, 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 judgment and order dated 06.07.1994 passed by Sri B.Prasad, III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985, whereby it has modified the judgment and order dated 29.03.1985 passed by Sri V.P.Srivastava, Assistant Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1984, State vs. Tej Bahadur and others, and sentenced revisionists to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC and two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and 1 year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/149 IPC.
3. It is contended that there was a cross case and both the sides have sustained injuries and the person, who was said to have fired by firearm has been acquitted on the ground that since no firearm injury was found hence no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out but both the Courts below have convicted revisionists under Section 307 IPC.
4. A concurrent finding has been recorded by both the Courts below and after examining facts and injuries sustained by victims, both the Courts below have recorded categorical finding which I do not find perverse requiring interference in revisional jurisdiction also. It has also recorded categorical finding that Mahendra Veer Singh sustained injury no.2, which was on the chest and at the time of medical examination, was continuously bleeding which shows that injuries were caused with intention to murder. The findings reads as under :
^^egsUnz ohj flag dh pksV ua- 2 ds fy, ,Dljs dh jk; nh x;h Fkh ysfdu mUgkasus ,Dljs fjiksVZ izkIr ugha gqbZA ;g ?kko lhus ij ekStwn Fkk ftlls ijh{k.k ds le; Hkh jDrlzko gks jgk Fkk ,slh ifjfLFkfr eas ;g ekuk tk;xks fd vfHk;qDrx.k dk bjknk gR;k djus dk Fkk QyLo:i muds fo:) Hkk0n0la0 dh /kkjk 307 dk vijk/k curk gSA** “For Injury No.2 of Mahendra Veer Singh, opinion of X-ray was given but X-ray report was not received. This injury was present on the chest, from which blood was oozing at the time of examination. In such circumstances, it will be presumed that intention of accused was to murder him. As a result thereof, offence under Section 307 is made out against them.
(English Translation by Court)
5. It is then contended that sentence be reduced on the ground that revisionists are at advanced age and this revision is pending for more than 25 years.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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."
10. 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."
11. 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"
12. 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)
13. 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.
14. Dismissed.
15. The accused, Tej Bhan Singh, Harnam Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh and Man Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall cause them to be arrested and lodge in jail to serve out the sentence passed against them. The compliance shall be prepared within two months.
16. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 KA