Delhi High Court
Abdul Shahzad vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 8 September, 2011
Author: Ajit Bharihoke
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment decided on 08th September, 2011
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104/2008
ABDUL SHAHZAD ....APPELLANT
Through: Appellant in J.C. with Mr. Ashutosh
Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ...RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)
1. Abdul Shahzad, the appellant herein, on being convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 34
IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 07 years as also to
pay fine of `5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for the period of 06
months, has preferred this appeal.
2. Briefly stated, allegations against the appellant are that he, in
furtherance of his common intention with his co-accused Mohd. Sueb
and others robbed the complainant Taufiq Mohd of `10,000/- on the
point of knife used by the accused Mohd. Sueb.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of appellant and his co-
accused, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses,
including the complainant. Statements of the appellant and his co-
accused were recorded. Both of them denied the prosecution
version and pleaded innocence. No witness in defence was
preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, at the
outset submitted that the appellant admits his guilt on merits and
does not press his appeal against the judgment of conviction. The
appellant, however, has confined his argument to the quantum of
sentence awarded to him. Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the sentence of RI for the period of 07 years is too
harsh and requested for a lenient view. It is contended that the
appellant is a young man aged about 27 years. He has a younger
brother and unmarried sister. His parents have expired during the
period of his incarceration and younger siblings are dependent upon
him as he is the only one to take care of them. It is also submitted
that the appellant has realized his mistake and given a chance, he
would make sincere effort to prove to be a useful member of the
society.
5. Learned APP, on the contrary, has argued in support of the
order on sentence and submitted that the sentence of 07 years RI
and fine of `5,000/- awarded to the appellant is commensurate with
the offence committed by him. Thus, the learned APP has urged for
dismissal of the appeal.
6. I have considered the rival contentions. Sentencing of an
accused in a criminal matter is a serious exercise and the quantum
of sentence imposed should be commensurate with the gravity of
the offence committed by the accused and the circumstances under
which the offence was committed. While dealing with the issue of
sentence for the offences under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Supreme Court in the
matter of Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 9 SCC
161, wherein the Supreme Court, has inter alia, observed thus:
"7. ......Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive
and reformative. The purpose is that the person found
guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his
fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future.
The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person
concerned to relent and repent for his action and make
himself acceptable to the society as a useful social
being. In determining the question of proper punishment
in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of
culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the
desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of
punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is
needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of
the individual and the concern of the society; weighing
the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment
on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same
time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent
punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting
society should not be undermined. Within the
parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to
afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself
and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society
and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such
opportunity to a person who has been found to have
committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed
on record would only have a hardening attitude towards
his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a
situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible
limits of law.
8. After giving our anxious consideration to the
question of reduction of sentence as urged on behalf of
the appellant and objected to on behalf of the
respondent, we have come to the conclusion that some
consideration should be shown to the appellant in the
matter. In coming to this conclusion we have taken into
account the facts that he has spent a long period, more
than thirteen years, in jail; that he was a young man of
21 years when he committed the act giving rise to the
case; that the situation then prevailing in the State of
Punjab was surcharged with acts of terrorism and
several misguided young men were drawn into the
movement; that in the meantime the movement has
subsided and it could be reasonably taken that the State
is free from the menace of terrorism. In taking the
decision to show some consideration to the appellant in
the matter of punishment we have reposed confidence in
goodness of human character which is a part of the
personality of every human being. We hope and believe
that our confidence will not be belied in the case of the
appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case
and the changed social environment which has
taken place in the meantime, it is our considered view
that the sentence of life imprisonment should be
modified to the period already undergone (about 13
years 7 months). Before being released from jail in the
case, the appellant will notify the jail authority the place
and the address at which he intends to stay, on receipt
of which the jail authority will intimate the
Superintendent of Police of that place with a request to
him to keep the appellant under observation. If the
Superintendent of Police finds that the appellant is
indulging in any illegal activity which amounts to an
offence under any law, he shall immediately send a
report to the Registrar General of this Court. With this
modification of sentence as noted above, this appeal is
dismissed."
7. In the case in hand, the appellant is a young man aged about
27 years. He has a younger brother and unmarried sister. His
parents have expired during the pendency of his appeal and his
younger siblings are dependent upon him to take care of them. As
per the nominal roll received from Central Jail No.1, Tihar, the
appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 04 years and
10 months (approximately), including remission as on 07.09.2011.
Taking into account the nature of the offence committed by the
appellant, to my mind, the imprisonment of 07 years RI for offence
under Section 394/34 IPC is too harsh. He deserves at least a chance
to mend his ways and become a useful member of the society.
8. In view of the discussion above, while maintaining the
conviction of the appellant under Section 394 IPC and also
maintaining the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant, the
substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for offence under
Section 394 IPC is reduced from 07 years RI to 05 years RI.
9. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information and necessary compliance.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 08, 2011
pst
