Delhi High Court
Monty Sehgal vs State on 15 September, 2015
#R-16A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15.09.2015
CRL.A.686/2008
MONTY SEHGAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Bishwajit Kumar Patra, Advocate
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 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 assailing the impugned judgment and order dated
14.03.2008 and 19.03.2008 convicting the appellant under section 308/34
IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for nine months.
2. Mr. Patra, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant,
on instructions from the latter states that the appellant does not wish to
challenge his conviction on merits. However, he contends that a lenient
view may be taken and the appellant may be released on the period already
undergone by him.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 24.09.2003 the co-accused of
the appellant is alleged to have assaulted the victim namely Abbas with
palta. The allegation against the appellant is that he assaulted the victim
with iron rod on his right hand and left leg. The victim is alleged to have
suffered grievous injuries.
4. The commission of the offence is alleged to have been sudden and
spontaneous and is not the consequence of any premeditated action on the
part of the appellant.
5. Mahatma Gandhi said, "hate the sin, love the sinner". The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of B.G. Goswami vs. Delhi Administration, 1973
SCC (Crl.) 796 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."
6. I have perused the nominal roll of the appellant. The appellant has
already suffered incarceration for a period of seven and half month including
remission out of a total sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment
imposed on him by the trial court. His conduct in jail has been satisfactory
from the beginning of his incarceration.
7. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant has suffered incarceration
for a period of 7½ months and the offence committed goes back to the year
2003 i.e. twelve years back, while upholding the conviction, the sentence
awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him
subject to payment of fine imposed by the impugned judgment and order.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
dn
