Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2001 · High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 204 of 2002 Revisionist :- Mishri Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar,A.K. Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned AGA for State. None has appeared on behalf of revisionist. 2. This revision is of the year 2002 and no one is appearing to press this revision, hence it is being decided on merits without granting any further opportunity for arguments. 3. This revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 05.02.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge / FTC IInd, Jaunpur in criminal appeal No. 67 of 2001, pertaining to case No. 264 of 2000, under section 323/504 IPC, PS Jafrabad, Jaunpur, whereby the appeal filed by the
Legal Reasoning
revisionist Mishri Lal against the order of his conviction under section 323 IPC has been partly allowed to the extent that sentence of six months awarded by the trial court was reduced to one month. 4. Perusal of record shows that the revisionist was charge sheeted for offence under section 323/504 IPC. After trial, the revisionist was convicted under section 323 IPC vide judgment and order dated 13.06.2001, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur and sentenced six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs 1000/, however, he was acquitted of charge under section 504 IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction, the revisionist has filed an appeal (criminal appeal No. 67 of 22010 against the judgment and order dated 13.06.2001. The appeal was partly allowed and confirming the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from six months to one month along with fine of Rs 1000/ vide judgment and order dated 05.02.2002 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge / FTC IInd, Jaunpur, which is being impugned in the present criminal revision. 5. By order dated 15.02.2002 this revision was admitted only on point of quantum of sentence. 6. Perusal of record shows that the case was lodged Smt Amrawati Devi (PW -1) alleging that her son was assaulted and beaten by legs and fists by the revisionist. The injured has sustained two simple injuries i.e. one contusion of 3 x 2 cm size and one traumatic swelling of 3 x 3 cm size at chest. The conviction of revisionist is not being challenged in this revision. Thus, the conviction is upheld. So far the question of sentence is concerned, it may be stated that the alleged incident took place 30.04.1991 and thus, a period of about 31 years passed since then. This revision is pending since last 20 years. It is well settled principle that sentence must be just and simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. The punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the court but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude to fix the quantum of sentence. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment. A court, while imposing sentence, has to keep in view the various complex matters in mind. In respect of certain offences, sentence can be reduced by giving adequate special reasons but the special reasons have to rest on real special circumstances. (vide Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana & Ors passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 4099-4100 of 2015). 7. Keeping aforesaid position of law in view, in the instant case it may be seen that the alleged incident took place about 31 years ago and the revisionist is not previous convict. The injured has sustained two simple injuries. No weapon was used by the revisionist in causing injury to the deceased. Considering all aspects of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by sending accused-revisionist in judicial custody at this stage, rather it appears that ends of justice would be met if sentence of one months imprisonment awarded by the appellate court is set aside and accused-revisionist be sentenced to the period already undergone by him along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 8. Accordingly, the conviction of accused-revisionist Mishrilal under section 323 IPC is upheld, but sentence of one month imprisonment, awarded by the appellate court below is set aside and accused-revisionist is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousands only). Accused-revisionist is directed to deposit fine of Rs. 1,000/- within forty five days from today. In default of payment of fine, accused-revisionist shall undergo one month imprisonment. 9. The instant revision is disposed of in above terms. 10. The summoned record along with copy of this order be sent back to the court concerned. Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Vivek Kr./A. Tripathi Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.06.07 13:36:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad