Allowed

Amjad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 May 2019CRLA/2024/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 354-B and 506 IPC. Considering the time already spent in jail, the court reduced the sentence under Section 354-B IPC by six months and adjusted the default imprisonment. The fine remained unaltered, and sentences run concurrently.

What did the court decide?

Sentence under Section 354-B IPC reduced by six months; default sentence under same section reduced by one month; default under Section 506 IPC reduced by fifteen days; conviction upheld.

Amjad Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2024 of 2019

¶4

Appellant :- Amjad

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P.

¶6

Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Yadav

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant at the very out set has submitted that he will not argue on bail, but he will argue on the merits of appeal and he will confine his argument to the quantum of sentence.

¶11

By the judgment and order dated 06.3.2019 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 2/F.T.C.-I, Agra, the accused-appellant has been convicted in S.T. No. 459 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 551 of 2016, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra for the offence under section 354-B IPC, for four years imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and for the offence under section 506 IPC, for two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine further one month additional imprisonment.

¶12

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:-

¶13

“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 re-culturization.

¶14

¶15

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.”

¶16

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

¶17

“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.”

¶18

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:-

¶19

“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

¶20

¶21

having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.”

¶22

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.

¶23

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 State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 .

¶24

In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh(2017) 13 SCC 449,

¶25

it has been observed that reforming criminals who understand their

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that accused-appellant is in jail since 29.5.2016, as such, he has already passed almost three years imprisonment. It has also been submitted that considering the said period of almost three years in jail, the sentence may either be converted to undergone or same may be substantially reduced.

¶33

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that accused-appellant has been rightly convicted for the offence after appreciating evidence available on record, hence sentenced awarded by the learned trial court is adequate and no sympathy should be given to the accused-appellant. However, he has also submitted that if the sentence is slightly reduced, he has no objection.

¶34

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the accusedappellant and also considering the fact that accused appellant has already passed almost three years in jail, if sentence under Section 354B is reduced by six months against the awarded sentence of four years, the ends of justice would be served. There is no need to disturb the sentence for the offence under section 506 IPC as learned trial court has directed that all sentences shall run concurrently. The fine imposed by court below appears to be adequate. However, default sentence under section 354-B IPC is reduced by one month and under section 506 IPC is reduced by fifteen days.

¶35

Accordingly, conviction is upheld. The appeal is finally disposed of with the modification that sentence under Section 354-B is reduced by six months against the awarded sentence of four years. There is no need to disturb the sentence for the offence under section 506 IPC as

¶36

¶37

learned trial court has directed that all sentences shall run concurrently. The fine imposed by court below appears to be adequate. However, default sentence under section 354-B IPC is reduced by one month and under section 506 IPC is reduced by fifteen days.

¶38

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

¶39

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 RCT/-

Amjad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amjad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Umesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sarik Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pancham Singh Vs C.B.I.