Partly allowed

Zulfikar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2019CRLA/3319/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal arising from an NDPS conviction, the Single Judge reviewed the quantum of a 30-year aggregate sentence already served for over 13 years. Upholding the conviction, the court reduced the main sentence by one year for both offences and modified the default sentences in lieu of fines from one year to four months each. The appeal was disposed of with necessary corrective modificati

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced by one year under each charge; default sentences in lieu of fine reduced from one year to four months in each section.

Zulfikar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case : - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3319 of 2016

¶3

Appellant :- Zulfikar Ahmad Respondent : - State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anirudh Sharma,Afshan Shafaut,Mohammad Mustafa,Vishal Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Krishna Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

At the very outset, the learned counsel for the accusedappellant has submitted that instead of arguing on bail application, he will argue on the merits of appeal and he would confine his argument to the quantum of sentence.

¶6

Heard Shri Mohammad Mustafa Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the accused-appellant Zulfikar Ahmad has been convicted in Special Case No. 42 of 2006, arising out of Complaint under sections 8, 20, 23, 29 and 43 of NDPS Act read with section 120B IPC, Land Customs Station- Sonauli, District Maharajganj and sentenced for the offence under section 8/20(b) (ii) (C) NDPS Act for 15 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,00,000/- fine and in default in payment of fine 01 year additional imprisonment and for the offence under section 23(c) NDPS Act for 15 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,00,000/- fine and in default in payment of fine 01 year additional imprisonment. It has been directed by the court below that in both the sections sentence shall run concurrently.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that accused-appellant is in jail from last 13 years, therefore, it has

¶9

¶10

been requested that a lenient view may be adopted and his imprisonment should be taken up as sufficient and the sentence may be converted either period already undergone or it may be substantially reduced.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has vehemently opposed the prayer and has also submitted that the convicted-accused was very rightly convicted by the learned court below on the basis of evidence on record. He however, submitted that if the sentence is slightly reduced, he has no objection.

¶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 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

¶14

¶15

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

¶20

¶21

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 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

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Our criminal jurisprudence in the country is based on corrective and reformative approach and it believes that no accused person is incapable of being reformed. It is clear that from last 13 years the convicted-accused is in jail.

¶32

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that for a long period, the accused-appellant has been regularly in jail and in this case if the sentence under both the sections is reduced by 01 year the ends of justice will be served.

¶33

¶34

So far as quantum of fine is concerned, it is adequate and need not be disturbed and in lieu of fine 01 year additional imprisonment has been awarded in both the sections, the 01 year additional imprisonment may be converted to 4 months in both the sections. Accordingly the sentence may be modified.

¶35

Accordingly, the conviction is upheld. The sentence is modified and is reduced by 01-01 year in both the sections [section 8/20(b) (ii) (C) NDPS Act and section 23(c) NDPS Act] from the awarded sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment and the default sentence in lieu of fine of 01 year in both the sections is reduced to 04-04 months in both the sections.

¶36

With this modification, the appeal is finally disposed of.

¶37

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.

¶38

Order Date :- 17.5.2019 Bhanu

Zulfikar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zulfikar Ahmad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pancham Singh Vs C.B.I.

Ram Bilas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Vs State of U.P.

Shivji Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raghuvar Shah Vs State of U.P.

Samrat Singh Yadav @ Digvijay Singh (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another