Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. on 5 February, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12346
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2506 of 2008
Appellant :- Kamlesh Kumar Verma
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Abdul Rafey Siddiqui,Dildar Khan,Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant, namely-Kamlesh Kumar Verma, against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions/F.T.C. III Faizabad convicting the appellant in Sessions Trial No.751/1995 holding him guilty under Section 14/323 I.P.C. and order dated 07.10.2008 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad giving him benefit of Section 4 Probation of Offender Act for a period of one year, arising out of Case No.240/1994 relating to police Station-Kotwali Tanda, the then District-Faizabad now District-Ambedkar Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was declared Juvenile on 16.10.1994 before the committal of the case to the court of session, hence, committal of the case and trial of the appellant by the court of session is void ab initio and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He further submits that illegal prolonged trial of appellant nearly for 14 years was a futile exercise by the Court of session was without any authority of law as the appellant was already declared juvenile before the commencement of the trial. He further submits that the plea that the appellant was declared juvenile by the court was also raised before the session court much before the commencement of trial but the trial court has overlooked the plea wrongly and illegally proceeded the trial resulting in gross miscarriage of justice, thus, he submits that the impugned judgment and orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellant and submits that the impugned orders have rightly been passed by the courts below as in the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions/F.T.C. III Faizabad the court below has considered the fact that the appellant was already declared Juvenile and directed therein that his case shall be transferred to Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad gave him benefit of Section 4 Probation of Offender Act for a period of one year vide order dated 07.10.2008, thus, both the orders appear to be sustainable in the eyes of the law, hence, no interference by this Court is required in the matter and present appeal being devoid of merit and substance may be dismissed.
6. After considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, this Court finds that so far as sentence regarding appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual case. In the present case, the court below has rightly considered the age of the appellant while passing the order of conviction and separated the case of the appellant referring it to the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad, which after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the material placed on record had affirmed the order of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.III, Faizabad and given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act to the appellant, namely-Kamlesh Kumar Verma.
7. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of Court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions persons aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalized. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime, which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vice Sumer Singh Vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323, Sham Sunder Vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731, M.P. Vs. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175].
8. Hence, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, I find that punishment imposed upon the appellant by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant and no question arises to interfere in the mater on the point of punishment imposed upon them.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, impugned judgment and orders dated 27.08.2008 and 07.10.2008 deserve to be affirmed and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and orders dated 27.08.2008 and 07.10.2008, detailed above, is hereby confirmed/affirmed.
11. Copy of this order along with lower Court record be sent to Court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 5.2.2024
Piyush/-
