Allowed

Ram Raj and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2022CRLR/695/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the sentence of death row-avoiding convicts from one year rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 2,000. The court also ordered each surviving revisionist to pay Rs. 2,500 as compensation to the victim, noting that defaulting would afford the original sentence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified from one year R.I. to a fine of Rs. 2,000; each accused ordered to pay Rs. 2,500 to the victim.

Ram Raj and Others Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 695 of 2008

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Raj And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Juned Alam,Abhishek Srivastava,M.J.Akhtar,P.K. Singh,Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, ,Dinesh Kumar Yadav,Dinesh Singh Yadav

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶7

This is a Revision filed against the concurrent judgements passed by the trial court dated 06.06.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, District Azamgarh in Criminal Case No. 2231 of 2006, State Vs. Ram Raj Yadav & Others under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Didarganj, District, Azamgarh and appellate court order dated 19.02.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh passed in Crl. Appeal No. 7 of 2006, Ram Raj & Others Vs. State of U.P. convicting the revisionists under Section 504 I.P.C. with one year R.I.

¶8

As per the report of C.J.M., Azamgarh, Revisionist No. 1, Ram Raj S/o Baran Yadav and Revisionist No. 4, Vijay Bahadur S/o Ram Raj have expired, therefore, this Revision Petition is abated qua to these Revisionists.

¶9

The present Revision is surviving qua to two Revisionists i.e. Revisionist No. 2, Raj Bahadur S/o Ram Raj and Revisionist No. 3, Lal Bahadur S/o Ram Raj.

¶10

Learned counsel after arguing for some-time submits that the sentence of one year be modified to fine only and further submits that the surviving revisionists shall pay compensation to the victim also.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has no objection if the present Revision is allowed.

¶12

Re: Principle of Sentencing

¶13

Indian legislature has not given any sentencing policy, though Malimath Committee (2003) and Madhava Menon Committee (2008) has asserted the need of sentencing policy in India.

¶14

Principle of sentencing has been an issue of concern before the Supreme Court in many cases and tried to provide clarity on the issue. Apex Court has time and again cautioned against the cavalier manner considering the way sentencing is dealt by High Courts and Trial Courts.

¶15

"..... It is established that sentencing is a socio-legal process, wherein a Judge finds an appropriate punishment for the accused considering factual circumstances and equities. In light of the fact that the legislature peroxided for discretion to the Judges to give punishment, it becomes important to exercise the

¶16

same in a principled manner." (para 49 of Accused ''X' vs. State of Maharastra (2019) 7 SCC 1 )

¶17

"12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analysed on the touchstone of three tests viz. crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defence, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a Judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).

¶18

13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support of amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach." (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udham and others (2019) 10 SCC 300)

¶19

It is also notable that ".... where minimum sentence if provided for, the Court cannot impose less than minimum sentence. " (Para 8 of State of Madhya Pradhesh vs. Vikram Das (2019) 4 SCC 125 )

¶20

Re : Compensation

¶21

Section 357 Cr.P.C. provides power to the Court to award compensation to victim, which is in addition and not ancillary to other sentences. While granting just and proper compensation Court ought to have consider capacity of the accused for such payment as well as relevant factors such as medical expenses, loss of earning, pain and sufferings etc.

¶22

Supreme Court has reiterated need for proper exercise of power of granting compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. in Manohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others : (2015) 3 SCC 449 and in paras 11, 31 and 54 it is stated that:

¶23

"11. .....Just compensation to the victim has to be fixed having regard to the medical and other expenses, pain and suffering, loss of earning and other relevant factors. While punishment to the accused is one aspect, determination of just compensation to the victim is the other. At times, evidence is not available in this regard. Some guess work in such a situation is inevitable. Compensation is payable under Section 357 and 357- A. While under section 357, financial capacity of the accused has to be kept in mind, Section 357-A under which compensation comes out of State funds, has to be invoked to make up the requirement of just compensation."

¶24

"31. The amount of compensation, observed this Court, was to be determined by the courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the nature of the crime, the justness of the claim and the capacity of the accused to pay."

¶25

"54. Applying the tests which emerge from the above cases to Section 357, it appears to us that the provision confers a power coupled with a duty on the courts to apply its mind to the question of awarding compensation in every criminal

¶26

case. We say so because in the background and context in which it was introduced, the power to award compensation was intended to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. The victim would remain forgotten in the criminal justice system if despite the legislature having gone so far as to enact specific provisions relating to victim compensation, courts choose to ignore the provisions altogether and do not even apply their mind to the question of compensation. It follows that unless Section 357 is read to confer an obligation on the courts to apply their mind to the question of compensation, it would defeat the very object behind the introduction of the provision."

¶27

In view of the above and considering that the matter is old and the F.I.R. was lodged way back on 31.1.1999, therefore, at this stage to send the surviving revisionists in jail will not be in the interest of justice, therefore, in view of the above discussion on principal of sentencing and compensation, the sentence awarded is modified to the extent of fine of Rs. 2,000/- as well as both the revisionists shall pay separately Rs. 2,500/- each to the victim i.e. P.W. 2 (Ram Palat) within a period of four weeks from today. In case of default, the surviving Revisionists have to undergo the sentence as passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.

¶28

Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is disposed of.

¶29

Order Date :- 14.10.2022 A. Mandhani

¶30

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK MANDHANI Date: 2022.10.17 17:46:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Raj and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Raj and Others 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

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Balbiri Devi Vs State of U.P and Another

Mohd. Asif Vs State of U.P.and Another

Kalicharan Alias Baba Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amrish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Srinarayan Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another