Ajeet Singh @ Ranjeet Singh vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 21756 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163146-DB
 
Reserved on : 27.7.2023
 
Delivered on : 11.8.2023
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1126 of 2010
 

 
Appellant :- Ajeet Singh @ Ranjeet Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Apul Misra,P.N. Misra,Raghuvansh Misra,Rahul Misra,V.K.Agnihotry
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Manoj Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

1. Heard Shri Sukhvir Singh as Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 08.02.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No.722 of 2006 (State vs. Ajeet Singh @ Ranjeet Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.1361 of 2005, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bithri Chainpur, District-Bareilly, whereby the accused has been awarded sentence for 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.40,000/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo one and a half years rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under 304-B IPC, the accused has been awarded life imprisonment and for the offence under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused has been awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo four months imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that a First Information Report was lodged being Case Crime No.1361 of 2005 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station-Bithri Chainpur, District-Bareilly on the basis of the complaint made by complainant who was the father of the deceased. In the complaint, it was alleged that deceased-Sunita Devi married to the appellant-Ajeet Singh @ Ranjeet Singh in the year 1999 as per Hindu rites and rituals in which the complainant had given sufficient dowry as per his capacity, but the appellant was not satisfied with the same and had further demanded one motorcycle and Rs.50,000/-. It was alleged by complainant that due to non-fulfillment of demand, the accused-appellant had murdered his daughter on 12.12.2005.

4. On investigation being put into motion, the investigating officer recorded the statements of all the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet to the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused and committed them to Court of Sessions as prima facie charges were for offences under Sections 498A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. On being summoned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

6. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 9 witnesses who are as follows:

Lalaram

PW1

Champa Devi

PW2

Arvind Kumar

PW3

Dr. Ram Manohar

PW4

Chandra Pal Tiwari

PW5

Amba Sahai

PW6

K.P. Yadav

PW7

Hargyan Singh

PW8

9.

Jagat Pal

PW9

7. In support of ocular version following documents were filed and proved:

F.I.R.

Ex.Ka.6

Written Report

Ex.Ka.1

Postmortem Report

Ex.Ka.2

Panchayatnama

Ex.Ka.3

Charge-sheet

Ex. Ka.5

Recovery memo of Plastic Rope

Ex.Ka.8

8. At the end of the trial and after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the informant as there was no demand of additional dowry on the part of the appellant.

10. While taking up through the judgment, when the Court was of the view that the death was a homicidal death looking to the medical evidence, learned counsel requested for showing leniency in the matter and seeks for lesser punishment as the accused-appellant is in jail for more than 10 years. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2895 of 2015 (Manoj Sharma vs. State of U.P.) decided on 9.12.2022.

11. As against this, learned A.G.A. states that this is a case where the deceased, 27 years old young lady at the time of incident, was done to death by the accused-appellant for non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry. Hence, no leniency can be shown to the accused-appellant by this Court.

12. While considering the evidence of witnesses and the Postmortem report which states that the injuries on the body of the deceased would be the cause of death and that it was homicidal death, we concur with the finding of the Court below. However it is to be seen whether the quantum of sentence is too harsh and requires to be modified. In this regard, we have to analyse the theory of punishment prevailing in India.

13. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, [AIR 1977 SC 1926], explaining rehabilitary & reformative aspects in sentencing it has been observed by the Supreme Court:

"Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries."

14. 'Proper Sentence' was explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP [(2004) 7 SCC 257] by observing that Sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the 'principle of proportionality'. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.

15. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP [(2010) 12 SCC 532], Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, [(2012) 8 SCC 734], Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, [(2014) 7 SCC 323], State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, [(2015) 3 SCC 441], and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, [(2016) 1 SCC 463] and has reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. While considering imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of crime on the society as a whole and rule of law needs to be balanced. The judicial trend in the country has been towards striking a balance between reform and punishment. The protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain order and peace, should effectively meet challenges confronting the society, as society could not long endure and develop under serious threats of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. At the same time, undue harshness should also be avoided keeping in view the reformative approach underlying in our criminal justice system.

16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view criminal jurisprudence in our country which is reformative and corrective and not retributive, this Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in the social stream.

17. As discussed above, 'reformative theory of punishment' is to be adopted and for that reason, it is necessary to impose punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of proportionality'. It appears from perusal of impugned judgment that sentence awarded by learned trial court for life term is very harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed above, has held that undue harshness should be avoided taking into account the reformative approach underlying in criminal justice system.

18. In view of the above, the findings of facts by the Court below are not disturbed. However, as far as punishment is concerned, we substitute the same to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has already been completed by the accused-appellant. Fine and default is maintained. If 10 years' imprisonment is already over, the accused-appellant be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. He will deposit the fine within four weeks from the date of release and in case fine is not deposited he will be re-incarcerated to undergo the sentence of default.

19. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.

20. Record be sent back to the court-below forthwith.

Order Date :- 11.8.2023

LN Tripathi