The Allahabad High Court has held that no conviction under Sec.3(2) SC/ST Act can be secured unless IPC Offence was committed on ground of caste.
The division judge bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi in the case of Pintu Gupta V. State of U.P held that 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 our criminal justice system.
Brief Facts of the Case
The factual matrix of the case is that the accused poured acid on the face of the injured. After that, the injured person has hospitalized and the father of the injured lodged the fir against the accused. The accused was convicted under sections 326 of the Indian penal code, 1860 and section 3 (2) (v) of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the injuries are not such that the offense under section 326 of the Indian penal code is made. It was further, contended that neither the F.I.R states that the injured belong to a particular community nor any documentary evidence produced before the investigating officer or the session court. Even, the injured has also not mentioned that the incident occurred because of his community. also, the ingredients to invoke section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST are not proved and the decision only holds that the accused guilty as injured belong to a scheduled caste.
The counsel relied on the judgments titled, HITESH VERMA vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, 2020 Latest Caselaw 597 SC, Jai Karan & Ors Vs. State of U.P , 2003 Latest Caselaw 527 SC’, ‘Vishnu Agarwalvs State of U.P. & ANR. , 2011 Latest Caselaw 147 SC’, and ‘Khuman Singh & Ors Vs. State of M.P, 2004 Latest Caselaw 673 SC’.
The learned counsel appearing for the state contended that the provisions of Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act are made out because the victim and the victim's father are members of the scheduled caste; as a result, a conviction under the aforementioned section is just and proper; the decision cited by the appellant's counsel in Khuman Singh, Jai Karan & Vishnu does not apply to the facts of this case; and the conviction under the SC/ST Act be upheld.
High Court's Observation
The court analyzed the theory of punishment prevailing in India by citing judgments titled, ‘Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 Latest Caselaw 141 SC’, ‘Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of U.P, 2004 Latest Caselaw 457 SC’, ‘Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & ANR., 2017 Latest Caselaw 176 SC’, ‘Jameel Vs. State of U.P., 2009 Latest Caselaw 891 SC’, ‘Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak’ , ‘Sumer Singh Vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, 2014 Latest Caselaw 324 SC’, ‘State of Punjab Vs. Bawa Singh, 2015 Latest Caselaw 39 SC’, and ‘Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. Etc., 2015 Latest Caselaw 533 SC’ and has reiterated that it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature and manner of its commission and undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations.
The appropriate sentence should be imposed on criminals and wrongdoers to strike a balance between reform and punishment. It is necessary to avoid undue leniency in the imposition of sentences. 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 our criminal justice system.
The court held that after keeping in view the criminal jurisprudence in our country that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity for reformation in order to bring them into the social stream. The court further, reduced the sentence from 10 years to 9 years and the fine from Rs 25,000 to Rs 2000.
CASE NAME- Pintu Gupta V. State of U.P
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4083 of 2017
CORAM- Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
