Delhi High Court
Savita vs State on 5 October, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.10.2015
CRL.A. 525/2008
SAVITA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Sajan K.Singh along with
appellant in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rajat Katyal, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and order dated 23.05.2008 and
24.05.2008 respectively convicting the appellant under Sections 489B/489C
IPC and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Mr Sajan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
on instructions from the latter, states that in view of the finding arrived at by
the trial court, the appellant does not challenge her conviction on merits.
However, counsel contends that a lenient view may be taken and the
appellant may be released on the period already undergone by her.
3. As per the prosecution, the appellant is stated to have used as genuine
five currency notes of denomination of Rs.50/- each which were found to be
counterfeit currency notes.
4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and stated that she
was completely unaware that the currency notes were counterfeit.
5. Mahatma Gandhi famously observed, "hate the sin, love the sinner".
6. In B.G. Goswami vs. Delhi Administration, 1973 SCC (Crl.) 796, the
Supreme Court observed as under:-
"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 sentence 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 seven years
of the agony and harassment of these proceedings
when he is also going to lose his job and has 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. I have perused the nominal roll qua the appellant. The appellant has
already suffered incarceration for a period of twenty days out of the total
sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed on her by the trial
court. Her conduct in jail has been satisfactory from the beginning the
incarceration. The appellant is an unmarried young woman who stays with
her aged mother. The appellant is not a previous convict and was in her early
twenties at the time of the commission of the offence.
8. In view of the foregoing, while upholding the conviction, the sentence
awarded to the appellant, is reduced to the period already undergone by her.
9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
OCTOBER 05, 2015
mk
