Allahabad High Court
Pramod vs State on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2446 of 1986
Appellant :- Pramod
Respondent :- State
Counsel for Appellant :- Sarfuddin Ahmad,Arun Kumar Tripathi,Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of accused appellant- Pramod against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1986 passed by the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.240 of 1982 arising out of Crime No. 172 of 1981, P.S. Tirva, District- Farrukhabad, convicting the appellant under section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and imposing sentence for one year rigorous imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.4.1981 at about 6:00 p.m. accused Pramod caused the death of Ram Singh S/o Jagdish Jatav with an intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death by hitting him with a panethi (danda). At the time of occurrence he also lifted him and threw away on the ground. The injured Ram Singh became unconscious on spot and after medical examination on the 14th day of occurrence, he died. The N.C.R. under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. was lodged by the injured Ram Singh himself. After investigation of the case charge-sheet under section 304 I.P.C. was filed against the accused Pramod.
3. The accused denied of the charge under section 304 I.P.C. by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced P.W.1, the scribe, P.W.2, Khetal, P.W.3, Gyani, P.W.4, Gyadin all witnesses of fact, P.W.5, Dr. V.P. Bhatnagar, P.W.6, S.I. Suraj Singh, Investigating Officer and P.W.7 Dr. V.R. Bajpai.
5. The accused in his statement under under Section 313 Cr.P.C. categorically denied the truthfulness of evidence produced against him, however no defence evidence was adduced by the accused.
6. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the witnesses of fact who have narrated the facts of the prosecution version in their deposition. P.W.1 has proved the N.C.R. and G.D. and P.W.6 has proved the proceedings of the investigation. P.W.5 has proved the post-mortem report of deceased Ram Singh and P.W.6 has proved the injury report of Ram Singh when he was injured and alive.
7. The trial Court after perusing the record has recorded a finding that charge under section 304 I.P.C. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused but all the same he was found liable for punishment for causing simple injuries to the deceased Ram Singh on the date of occurrence. Accordingly, he was convicted under section 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.
8. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no error in the conviction recorded by the trial court but the imposition of sentence by the trial court is too harsh. It has been submitted that at present the appellant Pramod is very old and the appeal was filed in the year 1986 and about 36 years have passed. It has been further submitted that the appellant has already suffered since long on account of the pendency of the present criminal proceedings going on against him. It has also been submitted that the appellant in this case has been detained in jail since 25.6.1981 to 7.8.1981 and the trial Court has passed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. It has been submitted that the sentence as imposed by the trial court may be modified to the extent of the period already undergone.
9. The learned A.G.A. has made no objections to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of sentence and submitted that in view of the long pendency of the criminal proceedings against the appellant, the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be reduced.
10. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the finding and conclusion given by the trial Court is on the basis of the evidence and facts on record which require no interference. On the basis of the facts and evidence on record, the conviction of the appellant has been correctly recorded by the trial Court.
11. The principle of law is well settled that the principle of proportionality between the punishment and crime cannot be brushed aside and the sentence must be just and proper. No doubt the concept of proportionality permits of discretion to the court but the same has to be guided by certain principles. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana & Ors (passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.4099-4100 of 2015) in this context has observed that neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. There can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. 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.
12. In the instant case, criminal machinery came into motion about 39 years ago. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant is a previous convict or having any criminal antecedents. Also the accused-appellant alone cannot be held responsible for long delay in disposal of this appeal. He is an old person. It has been submitted and also finds support from the record that the appellant remained in custody for some days when after death of the injured Ram Singh, the case was converted under section 304 I.P.C. In this regard, from the perusal of the order-sheet of the Magistrate Court, it appears that there a mentioning of the fact that the accused had been in jail from 25.6.1981 to 7.8.1981 during trial. Hence, considering all aspects of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by sending accused-appellant in judicial custody at this stage, rather in the aforesaid special circumstances, it appears that ends of justice would be served if sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court be modified to the extent that the sentence of the period already undergone is imposed and as such the appeal is liable to be partly allowed accordingly.
13. Therefore, the conviction of accused-appellant Pramod is upheld, but sentence of one year imprisonment, awarded by the trial court, is modified to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
14. The instant appeal is party allowed in above terms.
15. A copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
Shiv
