Allahabad High Court
Muneshwar Dayal And Another vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2630 of 1981
Appellant :- Muneshwar Dayal And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- R.C.Pal,Radheshyam Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Accused-appellants faced trail in Sessions Trial No.194 of 1981, State vs. Muneshwar Dayal and others, under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC, Police Station Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, ultimately trial came to be heard and decided by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukahabad .
Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants vide judgement and order dated 12.11.1981, under Sections 324/34 IPC and sentenced them for six months imprisonment; under Section 323/34 IPC and sentence them for one month imprisonment, both sentences run concurrently.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, accused-appellants filed the present Criminal Appeal.
Vide order dated 18.08.2022, the present criminal appeal has been abated against the appellant no.1-Muneshwar Dayal.
Now the present appeal survives only appellant nos.2-Vishwa Nath.
Heard Sri Radhe Shyam Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant nos.2-Vishwa Nath, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.
Learned Amicus Curiae for appellant nos.2-Vishwa Nath did not press the appeal on merit and issue of conviction. He further submits that accused-appellant is a poor person though he was falsely implicated in the present case. However, he is not pressing the appeal on issue of conviction but considering the entire facts and circumstances of case, he must be dealt sympathetically and he should be sentenced with already undergone.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for State opposed.
I have perused the impugned judgment and order of sentence carefully.
In view of argument of both the learned counsel for parties and findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, issue of conviction stands foreclosed and I do not find any good ground to interfere conviction. Criminal Appeal is dismissed on the issue of conviction under Sections 324/34 and 323/23 IPC recorded by the Trial Court.
So far as the second argument of learned counsel for accused-appellant and sentence of accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.
It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which, it was executed or committed. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence.
Keeping in view the nature of allegation, applying the principles laid down in the different judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it is committed. I, dispose of the appeal and confirmed appellant nos.2-Vishwa Nath conviction under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC but I, modify the impugned order of sentence in the following manner :-
(i) Conviction of accused-appellant under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC is confirmed.
(ii) Sentence of accused-appellant under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC is modified to the extent of substantive imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellant with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-.
(iii) In case, the accused-appellant shall not deposit Rs. 15,000/- as fine in the trial court concerned, he shall undergo for a period of six months simple imprisonment.
Appeal is disposed of with above terms.
A copy of order be communicated to Trial Court concerned for compliance and further necessary action through District Judge concerned.
Before parting we provide that Sri Radhe Shyam Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant no.2-Vishwa Nath who assisted the Court very diligently, shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 10,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, to him without any delay and, in any case, within two month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgement.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022
I.A.Siddiqui
