Dandugula Hanmanthu vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1691 Tel

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

     CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1005 & 1007 of 2009

COMMON ORDER:


      Since the facts of the case, the petitioner and the contentions

made in both these revisions are one and the same, both these

revisions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this

common order.


2.    Criminal Revision Case No.1005 of 2009 is filed by the

petitioner/appellant/A1,    challenging    the    judgment,      dated

17.06.2009, passed in Crl.A.No.105 of 2008 by the Additional

Sessions Court, Adilabad, whereby, the judgment, dated 22.10.2008,

passed in S.C.No.191 of 2007 by the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Adilabad, convicting the petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section

395 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for two months, was confirmed.


3.    Criminal Revision Case No.1007 of 2009 is filed by the

petitioner/appellant/A1,    challenging    the    judgment,      dated

17.06.2009, passed in Crl.A.No.104 of 2008 by the Additional

Sessions Court, Adilabad, whereby, the judgment, dated 22.10.2008,

passed in S.C.No.190 of 2007 by the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Adilabad, convicting the petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section
                                                                     Dr.SA, J
                                                         Crl.R.C.Nos.1005 & 1007 of 2009
                                   2

395 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for two months, was confirmed.


4.    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 in both these

revisions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the sole

respondent in both these revisions and perused the record.

5. The petitioner/A1 in both these revisions was convicted for the

offence under Section 395 of IPC. The date of commission of the

alleged offence was on the intervening night of 25/26.09.1997. The

complainant herself was examined as PW.1 before the trial Court.

The identity of the petitioner/A1 at Asifabad Jail in Test Identification

Parade, is established through the evidence of PW.1. Admittedly,

MO.1-Gold Kuttikattu was recovered from the possession of the

petitioner/A1. There are direct witnesses to the commission of

offence by the petitioner/A1. All the requirements for establishing

the offence under Section 395 of IPC against the petitioner/A1 have

been made out. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment

passed by the trial Court. Further, the lower appellate Court, on re-

appreciation of the entire evidence on record, was justified in

dismissing the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence

imposed against the petitioner/A1.

Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1005 & 1007 of 2009

6. Here, it is apt to state that Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C.,

confer only limited power on the Revisional Court to the extent of

satisfying about the legality, propriety or regularity of the

proceedings or orders of the lower Court and not to act like appellate

Court for other purposes, including the recording of new findings of

fact on fresh appraisal of evidence. The object of the Revisional

jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or

law. In the instant case, a perusal of the material placed on record

reveals that there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the

judgments under challenge. Both the revisions are devoid of merit

and are liable to be dismissed.

7. As far as the quantum of sentence imposed against the

petitioners/A1 is concerned, the offence took place on the intervening

night of 25/26.09.1997. The petitioner/A1 attended the trial Court

as well as the lower appellate Court in connection with this case.

During the pendency of the subject S.C.Nos.190 & 191 of 2007, the

petitioner/A1 was in judicial custody from 29.09.1997 to 29.11.1997

and from 27.09.2006 to 16.12.2006. After pronouncement of

judgment in S.C.Nos.190 & 191 of 2007 by the trial Court on

22.10.2008, the petitioner/A1 was taken into custody on the same

day. Thereafter, pursuant to the suspension of sentence granted by

the lower appellate Court, he was let out. The lower appellate Court

rendered its judgment in both the appeals on 17.06.2009 and on the Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1005 & 1007 of 2009

same day, the petitioner/A1 was taken into custody. Further, this

Court, vide order, dated 25.06.2009, passed in Crl.R.C.M.P.Nos.1373

& 1374 of 2009 in both these revisions, granted suspension of

sentence against the petitioner/A1 and ordered his release on bail.

Thus, in all, the petitioner/A1 was in judicial custody for about five

months in connected with both the subject SCs.

8. Determining the adequacy of sentence to be awarded in a

given case is not an easy task, so also evolving a uniform sentencing

policy. That is because the quantum of sentence that may be

awarded depends upon a variety of factors including mitigating

circumstances peculiar to a given case. The Courts generally exercise

considerable amount of discretion in the matter of determining the

quantum of sentence. In doing so, the Courts would be influenced in

varying degrees by the reformative, deterrent and punitive aspects of

punishment, delay in the conclusion of the trial and legal

proceedings, the age of the accused, his/her physical/health

condition, the nature of the offence, the weapon used and in the

cases of illegal gratification the amount of bribe, loss of job and

family obligations of accused are also some of the considerations that

weigh heavily with the Courts while determining the sentence to be

awarded. The Courts have not attempted to exhaustively enumerate

the considerations that go into determination of the quantum of Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1005 & 1007 of 2009

sentence nor have the Courts attempted to lay down the weight that

each one of these considerations carry. That is because any such

exercise is neither easy nor advisable, given the myriad situations in

which the question may fall for determination. Broadly speaking, the

Courts have recognized the factors mentioned earlier as being

relevant to the question of determining the sentence. There is

plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this subject.

9. In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, while reducing the punishment to the period already

undergone by the accused therein, laid down the general principles

that are to be borne in mind by the Courts while determining the

quantum of punishment. It was observed as follows:-

"The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. 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 re-claim 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

(1974) 3 SCC 85 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1005 & 1007 of 2009

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 agony 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."

10. Further, in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

V.K. Verma v. CBI2, it was held as follows:-

"In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the nature and mode of commission of an offence by a person and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a decision as to whether the charge established falls short of the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to what extent.

The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence.

The Appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also cardio vascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the Appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction."

11. While determining the quantum of sentence, the Court is

expected to strike balance between too harsh and too lenient view.

Balancing has to be done between the rights of the accused and the

(2014) 3 SCC 485 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1005 & 1007 of 2009

needs of society at large. It would also be a daunting challenge to

preserve the trust of citizens when using the authority of the Courts

to convict an accused. In the instant case, the incident pertains to

the year 1997, i.e., more than 24 years ago. The petitioner/A1 has

already undergone physical incarceration for about five months and

mental trauma for about 24 years. Keeping in view the provisions of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof

qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can

play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony

which he undergoes on account of protracted trial. Under these

circumstances, directing the petitioner/A1 to serve the remaining

period of sentence imposed upon him would be unfair. Article 21 of

the Constitution would bring within its sweep, not only expeditious

trial but disposal of appeals and revisions. Having given thoughtful

consideration to all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the facts mentioned above would certainly be

special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence, while

maintaining the conviction. Further, it is conceded by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/A1 did not indulge in

commission of offence thereafter. Considering the totality of the

circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate that if the sentence

of imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone by the

petitioner/A1, the same would sub-serve the ends of justice.

Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1005 & 1007 of 2009

12. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction against the

petitioner/A1, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him by

the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court, is reduced

to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The fine

amount of Rs.500/- imposed is maintained, along with default

sentence.

13. With the above reduction/modification of sentence of

imprisonment, both these revisions are dismissed, being devoid of

merit.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both these revisions

shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr.Shameem Akther, J 01st April, 2022 Bvv