Allahabad High Court
Sharafat vs State Of U.P. on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Lucknow)
***
RESERVED ON 30.8.2022
DELIVERED ON 9.9.2022
Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 2001
Sharafat ...Appellant
Through: Sri Rajiva Dubey, Counsel for the appellant
vs.
State of U.P. ...Opposite party
Through: Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate
ORDER
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.
1. Present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Sharafat under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in S.T. No.336 of 2000, under Section 436 IPC, Police Station Bazar Shukul, District Sultanpur. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted by learned trial court and sentenced to undergo for 05 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 436 of I.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned trial court. The appellant had not committed any offence. There was no enmity between the complainant and appellant and there is no eye witness also. The eye witnesses, who have given their evidences, were planted by prosecution. The appellant has been convicted for five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence defined under Section 436 IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history. The date of occurrence was 19.5.2000. Approximately 22 years have gone by. He has served the imprisonment for the period approximately 86 days. Appellant has his own family and he is the sole bread earner of his family. Appellant has the feeling of transform himself. He is realising remorseful of his conduct. At present, he is providing the beneficial contribution to the society. He is also ready to give some compensation to the victim.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further stated that he is not going to challenge the conviction order of the court rather he is praying for modification in order of sentence for the period already undergone by the appellant.
3. Learned AGA has submitted that the appellant has rightly been convicted in the case in the light of revival witnesses and other evidence on record. So far as the prayer for modification in order of sentence is concerned, he has no objection if the Court considers the mitigating circumstances of the case.
4. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA, I have gone through the record of the case properly.
5. 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."
6. It appears that the intention of law in sentencing seems reformative not punitive. In the present case, the appellant has been convicted for a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 436 IPC. Learned AGA could not show any previous conviction or criminal history of appellant. Approximately 22 years have gone by. No fruitful purpose will be served if the appellant will be sent jail again after a long time of gap. Taking into consideration the facts, circumstances and arguments of learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of the Court, the appellant should be given a chance to reform himself and he be allowed to give his better contribution to the society to which he belongs. Consequently, without interfere into the order of conviction, the sentence awarded by learned trial court is modified to the period already undergone.
7. Since the Court is taking a lenient view by altering the sentence awarded by the court below. The appellant was charged to make fire in the heart of a poor lady, therefore, it will be just and proper to award an appropriate compensation to the victim also. Accordingly, appellant, within two months from today, will deposit Rs. 20,000/- as compensation before the trial court. The trial court will disburse the aforesaid amount of compensation to the victim. If victim is not alive the said amount be paid to her legal representatives.
8. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount of compensation is not deposited by the appellant as directed above, the trial court will recover the aforesaid amount in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Office is directed to send the copy of this order along with the record of the case to the court concerned for compliance.
(Narendra Kumar Joh.ari, J.)
Lucknow
September 9, 2022
Amit
Whether the order is speaking:- Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable:- Yes/No
