Allahabad High Court
Grish Sharma And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2084 of 2016
Revisionist :- Grish Sharma And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Swaroop Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chaman Aara,Ghan Shyam Dubey
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgement and order dated 18.5.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 2, Firozabad in Criminal Case No. 689 of 2010 (State Vs. Grish Sharma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2009 under Section 498A, 323 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila, District Firozabad convicting revisionists two years and one year each simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and also 6 months simple imprisonment and 3 months simple imprisonment and one year simple imprisonment and 6 months simple imprisonment under Section 4 D.P. Act, fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and judgment and order dated 5.6.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2013 (Grish Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P.).
The First Information Report of the alleged incident was lodged on 5.6.2009. The informant alleged that she was turned out of her matrimonial home several years back because the demand of dowry could not be met.
Submission of the counsel is that the material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses were there, but neither the trial court considered nor the appellate court considered the same. Both the courts have failed to consider that there were years of delay in lodging of the FIR and the conviction and sentencing of the revisionists was not justified in the present case. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists were never involved in any crime and therefore, it would not be justified to send the revisionists to jail.
Perusal of the record shows that the offence alleged is of around the year 2009. The trial court passed the judgment on 18.5.2013 and the appellate court has rejected the appeal of the revisionists on 5.7.2016. About 11 years have passed and despite the fact that crime is affront to the human dignity, the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists merits consideration.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has urged all the Courts time and again to exercise this power liberally which was intended to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system and to meet the ends of justice in a better way. In Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551 the Supreme Court urged all courts to exercise their power under Sec. 357 Cr.P.C. liberally to safeguard the interests of the victim. In this case, the victim was ill treated by her in-laws and husband and regularly demands of dowry were made. The accused were convicted by trial court under Sec.s 498A, 323 of IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced to imprisonment for two to three years.
In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 the Supreme Court went a step further and observed that the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. While the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused. Capacity of the accused to pay which constitutes an important aspect of any order Under Sec.357 Code of Criminal Procedure would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary unless of course the facts as emerging in the course of the trial are so clear that the court considers it unnecessary to do so. Such an enquiry can precede an order on sentence to enable the court to take a view, both on the question of sentence and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or his/her family.
In K.A. Abbas H.S.A. v. Sabu Joseph, (2010) 6 SCC 230 the Apex Court made it clear that the whole purpose of the provision is to accommodate the interests of the victims in the criminal justice system. Sometimes the situation becomes such that no purpose is served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead directing the accused to pay an amount of compensation to the victim or affected party can ensure delivery of total justice. Therefore, this grant of compensation is sometimes in lieu of sending a person behind bars or in addition to a very light sentence of imprisonment.
Having overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the time lapsed and also the fact that the revisionists belongs to a good society, the sentence of imprisonment of the revisionists under Section 498A, 323 IPC and 4 D.P. Act is reduced to the period already undergone. To further meet the ends of justice, fine of Rs.1,25,000/- is directed to be paid to the victim as compensation. The revisionists, Grish Sharma, Harish Sharma and Smt. Santosh Sharma are directed to deposit Rs.1,25,000/- before the trial court and the same shall be released in favour of the victim. Any amount of fine already deposited shall be adjusted. In case of failure to deposit of the amount, the revisionists shall be required to serve the remaining sentence.
In view of the above, the judgment and order of the trial court is modified to the extent stated above. This revision is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021
shiv
