Partly allowed

Babu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019CRLR/530/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 530 of 2018, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused under the Cow Slaughter Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act but reduced the sentence from seven years to three years and six months, directing that the period already undergone in jail be adjusted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to three years and six months with fine; period of detention adjusted.

Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 530 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shujauddin,Neelesh Kesharwani,Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2017, Babu and Another v. State, dismissing the appeal arising out of judgement and order dated 02.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, in Case No. 243 of 2016 (Crime No. 149 of 2015) under Section 3/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Police Station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur by which, accused-revisionist, under Section 3/8 Cow Slaughter Act, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and Section 11 of the Act, accused-revisionist fined of Rs. 50 and in default of fine to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that accusedrevisionist has passed 3 years 3 months in Jail in the present case in the aforesaid Sections, although Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in right perspective and Appellate Court wrongly dismissed the appeal. Accused-revisionist is very poor person and he is in Jail since 5.10.2016; he did not want to

¶8

press the revision on the point of conviction. It is further submitted that sentence awarded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for State submitted that Trial Court and Appellate Court appreciated the evidence in right perspective and there is no sufficient ground to reduce the punishment of accused-revisionist.

¶10

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

¶11

In view of argument made by learned counsel for parties and findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, issue of conviction stands foreclosed and Revision is dismissed on the issue of conviction under the aforesaid Sections.

¶12

So far as the second argument of learned counsel for accusedrevisionist and sentence of accused-revisionist is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various cons

¶13

iderations. 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

¶15

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 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 offence 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, nature of offence, weapon used in commission of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. I partly allow this revision. I confirm appellant's conviction under 3/8 Cow Slaughter Act by modifying impugned order of sentence. The accused-revisionist is sentenced to 3 years and 6 months and fine imposed by Trial Court concerned. Period of detention of accused-revisionist in Jail shall be adjusted in the sentence giving benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Akram

Babu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Up and 4 Others

Nitendra Kumar Dwivedi and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharam Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nisha Vs State of U.P. and Another