Khunnan And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 7165 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 127 of 2003
 

 
Appellant :- Khunnan And 3 Ors
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil K. Tripathi,Rajiv Kumar Bajpai,Saryu Prasad Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

1. Present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.1.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC Ist), Sultanpur in S.T. No. 57 of 1994 (State Vs. Khunnan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 1991 under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo three and half years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence under Sections 308/34 IPC and in default of fine six months simple imprisonment; and to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/34 with a direction that all the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the accused appellants have wrongly been implicated in the case. No offence under Sections 308 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against the accused-appellants. It has wrongly been mentioned in the FIR that on 13.9.1991 at about 4:30 AM when the informant's son namely Ranjit Singh and one Surendra Bahadur Singh, who is resident of same village, were going to attend the call of nature from the passage of the house of Khunnan, accused Khunan stopped and refrained them to go through front side of his door. On the above point, a small quarrel took place between them. Thereafter, attending the call of nature, when both the persons were returning from the same passage, all the accused persons namely Khunan, Ninhai, Pallu and Jhinku abused and attacked on them with stick (lathi). Consequently, both persons received serious injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that no deadly weapon was used in the occurrence. According to medial report, both the persons had received simple injuries except one which was found serious on the head region of injured Surendra Bahadur Singh.

Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that accused-appellants and informant both are residents of same village and are neighbour. The date of occurrence has been shown as 13.9.1991, accordingly, approximately 32 years have gone by. At present a good relation has developed between the parties and they are living peacefully in the village.

3.Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the appellants are not going to challenge the conviction order of the court rather they are praying for modification in order of sentence. Appellants have no criminal history in there credit. They have passed approximately 51 days in jail during the proceedings of the case. The appellants are remorseful for their conduct. They are ready to pay some compensation to victims also. Hence they may be released taking into consideration the period already undergone by the appellants.

4. Learned AGA has submitted that the appellants have rightly been convicted in the case by the learned trial court. 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.

5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA, I have gone through the record of the case properly.

6. 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."

7. It can be inferred that object for sentencing an accused should be reformative.

8. In the case of Alister Anthony Pareira vs State Of Maharashtra (2012) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have devolved 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.

9. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and taking into consideration the fact that the the date of occurrence was 13.9.1991, accordingly, approximately 32 years have gone by. The appellants had undergone for the period of approximately 51 days in furtherance of his sentencing order. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are remorseful of their conduct to the society and they have feeling of transformation in themselves and are also ready to pay some compensation to the victims. They have no criminal history. No fruitful purpose will be served sending them in jail again after a long gap of time. The object of sentence is reformative. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the appellants should be given a chance to reform themselves, hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants is allowed. Consequently, without interfere into the order of conviction, the sentence awarded by learned trial court is modified to the period already undergone.

10. Since the Court is taking a lenient view by altering the sentence awarded by the court below, therefore, it will be just and proper to award an appropriate compensation to the victims namely Ranjit Singh and Surendra Bahadur Singh. Accordingly, appellants within two months from today, will deposit Rs. 5,000-5,000/- each as compensation to each injured before the trial court. The trial court will disburse the aforesaid amount of compensation to the victims (twenty thousand each). If victims are not alive the said amount be paid to their legal representatives.

11. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount of compensation is not deposited by the appellants as directed above, the trial court will recover the aforesaid amount in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

13. Office is directed to send the copy of this order along with the record of the case to the court concerned for compliance.

Order Date :- 13.3.2023

AKK