Partly allowed

Ram Bilas v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2019CRLA/1290/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeals arising from conviction under offences including cheating and criminal conspiracy, the Single Judge upheld the convictions. While emphasizing principles of proportionality and reformative justice from Supreme Court precedents, the court allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and the default terms in lieu of fines, finding no need to disturb sentenc

What did the court decide?

The conviction is upheld. The sentence of 07 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 467 I.P.C. is reduced by two years. The default sentences in lieu of fine under sections 120-B, 4

Ram Bilas Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1290 of 2017 Appellant :- Ram Bilas Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Surat Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amit Misra,Gyan Prakash

¶3

Connected with

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1193 of 2017 Appellant :- Pancham Singh Respondent :- C.B.I. Counsel for Appellant :- Bhagi Rathi Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Misra,Mr Gyan Prakash

¶5

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Since both the appeals have arisen out of same case crime number and same judgement passed by the learned court below, therefore, it is being heard and decided by a common judgment.

¶7

Learned counsel for both the accused-appellants Ram Bilas and Pancham Singh, at the very outset has submitted that instead of arguing on bail application they would like to argue on the merits of appeal and they would like to confine their prayer on the quantum of sentence.

¶8

It has been pointed out that the lower court record has not been received. In this situation, where the learned counsel for the appellants has opted to argue on quantum of sentence, I do not find any restriction or any need for original record.

¶9

Heard Shri Shyam Surat Shukla, Advocate and Shri Bhagi Rathi Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of accusedappellants, Shri Amit Misra, Advocate and Shri Gyan Prakash, Advocate appearing on behalf of the CBI and perused the record.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has submitted that the accused-appellants Ram Bilas and Pancham Singh have been convicted in Special Case No. 20 of 2011, arising out of same Case Crime No. 23 of 2004 (CBI Vs. Badri Prasad and others), RC- 0072004A0006, P.S. CBI Dehradun, District Dehradun and sentenced for the offence under section 120B I.P.C. [ read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) Prohibition of Corruption Act, 1988 ] for 05 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5000/- fine each and in case of default in payment of fine 03 months additional rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under section 420 IPC for 04 year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2000/- fine each and in case of default in payment of fine 02 months additional rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under section 467 I.P.C. for 07 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 7000/fine each and in case of default in payment of fine 06 months additional rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under section 468 I.P.C. for 04 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2000/fine each and in case of default in payment of fine 02 months additional rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under section 471 IPC for 01 year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine each and in case of default in payment of fine 01 months additional rigorous imprisonment. The learned trial court has directed that the sentences in all the sections shall run concurrently.

¶12

Learned counsel for both the accused-appellants have submitted that accused-appellants are in jail since 07.01.2017 from the date of judgement and prior to that they were in jail almost 10 months and as such they were in jail about 03 years, and therefore, they have requested that considering the period

¶13

¶14

they are in jail, a lenient view may be adopted and the sentence may be converted either undergone or the sentence may be substantially reduced.

¶15

Learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer, he has however, submitted that if slight reduction in sentence is made, he has no objection.

¶16

In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, AIR 1977 SC 1926, explaining rehabilitary & reformative aspects in sentencing it has been observed by the Supreme Court:

¶17

“Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries.”

¶18

In Sham Sunder vs Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731, where

¶19

¶20

the high court reduced the sentence for the offence under section 304 part I into undergone, the supreme court opined that the sentence needs to be enhanced being inadequate. It was held:

¶21

“The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into consideration the nature of offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of offence.”

¶22

In State of MP vs Najab Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 509, the high court, while upholding conviction, reduced the sentence of 3 years by already undergone which was only 15 days. The supreme court restored the sentence awarded by the trial court. Referring the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734, the court observed as follows:

¶23

“In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice dispensation system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in

¶24

¶25

view the rights of victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.”

¶26

Earlier, "Proper Sentence" was explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 by observing that Sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the principle of proportionately. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.

¶27

In subsequent decisions, the supreme court has laid emphasis on proportional sentencing by affirming the doctrine of proportionality. In Shyam Narain vs State (NCT of delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it was pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed with regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is that the society may not suffer again by such crime. The principle of proportionality between the crime committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in mind. The impact on the society as a whole has to be seen. Similar view has been expressed in Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs

¶28

¶29

State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463.

¶30

In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh(2017) 13 SCC 449, it has been observed that reforming criminals who understand their wrongdoing, are able to comprehend their acts,have grown and nartured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world, have the capacity of humanising the world.

¶31

In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166 , the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734, Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 and has reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. While considering imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of crime on the society as a whole and rule of law needs to be balanced.

¶32

¶33

The judicial trend in the country has been towards striking a balance between reform and punishment. The protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain order and peace, should effectively meet challenges confronting the society, as society could not long endure and develop under serious threats of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. At the same time, undue harshness should also be avoided keeping in view the reformative approach underlying in our criminal justice system.

¶34

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view criminal jurisprudence in our country which is reformative and corrective and not retributive. It believes that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in the social stream.

¶35

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the highest sentence which has been awarded by the learned trial court is of 07 years under section 467 I.P.C. the remaining sentence are much less in comparison to it, therefore, the sentence awarded under section 467 I.P.C. if reduced by 02 years against the awarded sentence of 7 years, the ends of the justice will be served. From perusal of the judgement, it appears that the sentence in all other sections have been directed to run

¶36

¶37

concurrently and it has also been directed that the period in which the accused persons were in jail shall be accommodated in their sentence, therefore, there is no necessity for disturbing the sentence which has been awarded in other sections.

¶38

So far as quantum of fine is concerned, it appears to be adequate and it is not required to be disturbed. However, the default sentence in lieu of fine may be reduced to some extent to serve the ends of justice.

¶39

Accordingly, the conviction is upheld. The appeal is finally disposed of with the modification that the sentence of 07 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 467 I.P.C. is reduced by 02 years and the default sentence in lieu of fine under section 120-B IPC is reduced from 03 months rigorous imprisonment to 01 months rigorous imprisonment, under section 420 IPC is reduced from 02 months rigorous imprisonment to 01 months rigorous imprisonment, under section 467 IPC is reduced from 06 months rigorous imprisonment to 2 months rigorous imprisonment, under section 468 IPC is reduced from 02 months rigorous imprisonment to 01 months rigorous imprisonment and under section 471 IPC is reduced from 01 months rigorous imprisonment to 15 days rigorous imprisonment.

¶40

Office is directed to transmit the lower court record along with copy of this judgment to the learned court below for information and necessary compliance as warranted.

¶41

Order Date :- 16.05.2019 Bhanu

Ram Bilas v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bilas v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amjad Vs State of U.P.

Pancham Singh Vs C.B.I.

Shivji Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Zulfikar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another