Allahabad High Court
Vijay Pal vs State Of U.P. on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Judgment Reserved Reserved On : 29.08.2022
Delivered On: 09.09.2022
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 437 of 2001
Appellant :- Vijay Pal
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Umesh Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
1. Present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Vijay Pal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2001/01.06.2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Faizabad in S.T. No.84 of 2000, arising out of Crime No.318/1999, under Section 366 IPC, Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad. By the impugned judgment and order, appellant Vijay Pal was sentenced to undergo four years' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 366 IPC. In default stipulation, to undergo one years' further imprisonment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. There was love affair between the prosecutrix and co-accused Guttan @ Pawan Kumar, that is why prosecutrix eloped with co-accused and went to different places by public transport. Prosecutrix and co-accused were arrested when they were going together. The prosecutrix had named only co-accused for committing rape. Appellant has no concern with the occurrence and the essential ingredients of Section 366 IPC are not made out against the appellant. Date of occurrence is 15.08.1999. Approximately, 23 years have gone by. Appellant was in jail for approximately 08 months in furtherance of the sentence awarded by the trial court. Appellant has no criminal history. Hence, he is pressing the appeal only in respect of the order of sentence. He is not disputing the order of conviction. He, however, prays for modification of order of sentence for the period already undergone by the appellant.
3. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that appellant has rightly been convicted by learned trial court on the basis of sufficient evidence. So far as, the prayer for modification in sentence is concerned, he has no objection if the Court in view of the prayer so made by learned counsel for the appellant considers the mitigating circumstances for modification of sentence.
4. I have heard the arguments of rival sides and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not going to challenge the judgment of conviction against the appellant, therefore, the conviction against the appellant is hereby affirmed.
6. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant, neither prior to the date of occurrence, nor after the date of occurrence has any criminal history. Appellant is responsible person of the society. He is the sole bread earner of his family. As a regret, he is remorseful of his conduct and he is trying to transform himself to provide beneficial contribution to the society.
7. The provisions of Cr.P.C. has not given any straitjacket formula for sentencing. According to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts, the sentence for the offence depends on so many factors like circumstances for commission of crime, character, antecedents of offenders, use of weapon, mode of crime, mental status and the age of offender. The socio economic condition also plays a vital role. In the case of B.G. Goswami vs. State of Delhi Administration 1973 AIR 1457, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:-
"Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations, which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act, which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole.
Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the annoy and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs- 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."
8. It can be inferred that object for sentencing an accused should be reformative.
9. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and taking into consideration the fact that at present the age of appellant is approximately 53 years. He remained in jail for about 8 months in furtherance of his sentencing order. He has realised and regretted his mistake and is remorseful for his conduct to the society to which he belongs. He is feeling transformation in him. 23 years have gone by. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him in jail again after a long gap of time. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the appellant should be given a chance to reform himself. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant is allowed.
10. Consequently, without interfering in the order of conviction, the sentence awarded to the appellant Vijay Pal is hereby modified to the period already undergone. However, the appellant shall deposit the amount of fine as awarded by the learned trial court. The aforesaid amount of fine shall be deposited within six weeks from today, failing which learned trial court will recover the same in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Office is directed to send the record along with a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance.
(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.)
Lucknow :
Date : 9th September, 2022
ML/-
Whether the order is speaking:- Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable:- Yes/No
