Partly allowed

Amit Soni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2019CRLA/7232/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against conviction under Section 456 IPC. Appeal not pressed on merit. Court disposed at admission stage, upheld conviction but enhanced fine from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000, confirming sentence already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Appellant sentenced to period already undergone and fined Rs. 15,000; default imprisonment of six months.

Amit Soni Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7232 of 2019

¶2

Appellant :- Amit Soni Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Singh Parmar,Hariom Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for accused-appellants learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶5

With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, Appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶6

Accused-appellant faced trail in Sessions Trial No. 155 of 2012, State v. Amit Soni (Crime No. 403 of 2012) under Section 459 IPC, Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur, ultimately trial came to be heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Hamirpur.

¶7

Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant under Section 456 IPC and sentenced him for 2 years simple imprisonment, vide judgment and order dated 5.11.2019 and with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

¶8

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, accused-appellant filed the present Criminal Appeal.

¶9

Learned counsel for accused-appellant did not press the Appeal on merit and issue of conviction. He further submits that accused-appellant is a poor person though he was falsely implicated in the present case. However, he is not pressing the appeal on issue of conviction but considering the entire facts and circumstances of case, he must be dealt sympathetically and he should be sentenced with already undergone and enhanced fine.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for State opposed.

¶11

I have perused the impugned judgment and order of sentence carefully.

¶12

In view of argument of both the learned counsel for parties and findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, issue of conviction stands foreclosed and I do not find any good ground to interfere conviction. Criminal Appeal is dismissed on the issue of conviction under Section 456 IPC recorded by the Trial Court.

¶13

So far as the second argument of learned counsel for accused-appellant and sentence of accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.

¶14

It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which, it was executed or committed. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalized. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not

¶15

awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323, Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731, M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ].

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of allegation, applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, motive, nature of offence, weapon used in commission of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. I partly allow this appeal. I confirm appellant's conviction under Sections 456 I.P.C. by modifying impugned order of sentence. The accused-appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and with fine of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposed within one month in the Court concerned. In default, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

¶17

A copy of order be sent to Trial Court concerned for compliance and further necessary action through District Judge concerned.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.11.2019 Akram

Amit Soni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Soni 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

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Bheem Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Hasim Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamran Vs State of U.P.