Allahabad High Court
Hari Shanker Ojha vs State Of U.P. on 6 September, 2022
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 602 of 1999
Appellant :- Hari Shanker Ojha
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Imtiyaz Murtaza,Nadeem Murtaza
Counsel for Respondent :- Government Advocate
CONNECTED WITH
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 618 of 1999
Appellant :- Gauri Shanker Alias Sonu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- I.Murtaza,Nadeem Murtaza
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Mr Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA and perused the record.
Since both the appeals arise out of the same Sessions Trial, hence they are being decided by a common judgement.
Instant Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 15.10.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow in S.T. No. 308 of 1999, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation and further the appellants have been convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation.
At the very outset, counsel for the appellants contended that he does not assail the findings recorded by learned trial Court on merits. It is further submitted that that the incident is of the year 1998 and after conviction, more than 23 years have passed and the appellants namely, Hari Shanker Ojha and Gauri Shanker @ Sonu have already undergone a sentence of about three months and thirteen months respectively, therefore, he prays that taking into consideration the time lapsed after the incident, without making any interference on the merits/conviction passed by the learned trial court, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be substituted to the period of sentence already undergone by them. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 3270 in the case of MOHAMMED HOSHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF A.P., wherein the Apex Court considering the fact that both the appellants were in imprisonment for about two months, the incident took place on 9.3.1988, the appellant No.2 is the mother of appellant No.1 and she was aged 60 years, the sentence is confined to the custodial period already undergone.
Learned AGA opposes the submissions and in alternate, he submits that a fine be imposed upon the appellants, which may be directed to be released to the complainant, or his legal heirs.
This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."
This Court on conjoint reading of the facts and considering the manner in which the incident had taken place, and also the fact that the appellants have already undergone a sentence of three months and thirteen months respectively and on reading of the testimony of prosecution witnesses as has come on record, is convinced that the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants merits acceptance subject to imposition of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each upon the appellants.
In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them and a fine to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on each of them. The fine amount shall be deposited before the concerned Court along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two months from today. The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
If the accused-appellants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period granted to them by this Court, they are liable to undergo additional sentence of six months' simple imprisonment.
Order Date :- 6.9.2022
RavindraKSingh
