Partly allowed

Raghuvar Shah v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2019CRLA/707/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for drugs offenses, the High Court held that the minimum ten-year sentence under the N.D.P.S. Act could not be reduced but reduced the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine from two years to six months.

What did the court decide?

Default sentence of two years in lieu of fine reduced to six months; imprisonment of ten years maintained.

Raghuvar Shah Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 707 of 2013

¶4

Appellant :- Raghuvar Shah Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- A.P. Mishra,Amit Rai,Noor Muhammad,P.K. Chaudhary,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶7

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.

¶8

By the judgment and order dated 05.2.2013 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, X Cadre, Chandauli, the accused-appellant has been convicted in Criminal Case No. 8 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 313 of 2009, P.S. Kotwali Chandauli, District Chandauli for the offence under section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further two years additional imprisonment.

¶9

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:-

¶10

“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. 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

¶11

¶12

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.”

¶13

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:

¶14

“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.”

¶15

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:-

¶16

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

¶17

Earlier, "Proper Sentence" was explained in Deo Narain Mandal

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

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 .

¶21

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.

¶22

In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166 , the

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

¶27

Submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that this period of detention may be considered to be sufficient and the sentence either may be converted into undergone or some relief may be given so that the accused-appellant may be released soon.

¶28

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that there was recovery of 400 gram heroin from the possession of the accused-appellant which is above commercial quantity and for which, minimum sentence provided is 10 years imprisonment, therefore, there cannot be any reduction in terms of sentence which has been awarded to the accusedappellant. On this, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that learned trial court has imposed excessive fine and excessive default sentence that may be reduced to meet the ends of justice.

¶29

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the accusedappellant, I am of the view that the sentence awarded for the offence under section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, neither can be disturbed nor reduced from 10 years because the said period of ten years is minimum sentence for the offence. The fine of rupees one lac, looking to the quantity of heroin appears to be adequate. However, the default sentence in lieu of fine may only be reduced from two years to six months. This is maximum relief which can be granted.

¶30

Accordingly, this appeal is finally disposed of with the modification that default sentence of two years in lieu of fine is reduced to six months under section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act. The fine imposed by court below appears to be adequate.

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 17.5.2019 RCT/-

Raghuvar Shah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuvar Shah 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

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.

Zulfikar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

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