JUDGMENT Hon’ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.—The accused appellant Mewa has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2002 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No. 2), Lakhimpur Kheri in ST No. 593 of 2000 arising out of case Crime No. 295 of 1997, under Sections 324 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Kheri, District- Lakhimpur Kheri by which the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The accused appellant has been acquitted for the charges framed under Section 307 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 8.10.1997, one Nand Kishore Tiwari had gone to his field at around 02.00 pm to watch his crop. He saw Munna, Salim, Mewa and Dhruv were grazing their buffaloes and goat. The complainant raised objection upon which they started abusing the complainant. Upon alarm being raised Aslam, Ashok, Raghuwar, Itwari and Bhorai reached at the scene. As soon as, the complainant was proceeding alongwith the animals to kanzi house, accused Chote lal, Mewa and Ram Shanker arrived at the scene and fired at the complaint with the licensed gun. The bullets hit Itwari, Aslam and Ashok. The complainant saved himself by hiding behind a tree in the grove. The complainant, then, lodged FIR and the injured were medically examined at District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 IPC and the accused was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for Trial. The Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused to which he denied and claimed Trial. 3. The prosecution examined Nand Kishore Tiwari as P.W.-1, Aslam as P.W.-2, S.P. Verma as P.W.-3, Itwari as P.W.-4, Raghuwar as P.W.- 5, Ashok Kumar as P.W.-6 and Raghuwansh Singh (SI) as P.W.-7, Dr. Giriraj Sharma as P.W.-8. 4. After conclusion of the evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied prosecution evidence and stated that he has been implicated in this case out of enmity. 5. After conclusion of the Trial, the Learned Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Thus, the accused Mewa, Chote Lal and Ram Shanker were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 6. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the records. 7. 5. After conclusion of the Trial, the Learned Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Thus, the accused Mewa, Chote Lal and Ram Shanker were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 6. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the records. 7. A careful scrutiny of the evidence available on the record show that it is a case of causing hurt by fire-arm under the heat of passion without any intention to kill. The learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in holding that the accused is entitled to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC alone and he need not be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. A perusal of the injury report as proved by Dr. S.P. Verma show that one traumatic swelling 6 cm x 4 cm in the lower part of palm of right hand was found on the body of Raghuwar, son of Kanhaiya which was caused by the blunt object. There was fire-arm wound of entry 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm on right side. Another injured Aslam, son of Asgar who was also one of the injured, has suffered from one fire-arm wound of entry 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm on left side of chest 5 cm above left nipple. The medical expert, Dr S.P. Verma has stated that the injuries caused on the body of the two injured namely Ashok Kumar Son of Mahesh Prasad and Aslam, son of Asgar was caused by fire-arm wound on 8.10.1997 at 2.00 pm. 8. The FIR was initially lodged for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, but during the course of Investigation, the offence was converted into one punishable under Section 307 IPC on the basis of Medical Reports as stated by SI Raghuwar Singh (P.W.-7). Interestingly, the injured Aslam has been declared hostile who has stated that the accused have not fired at him. Similarly, Ashok Kumar (P.W.-6) has also not corroborated the prosecution version. 9. In either case, the prosecution story has been successfully proved by Nand Kishore Tiwari (P.W.-1), whose statement gets corroboration from the injury reports (exhibit Ka 3) and (exhibit Ka 4) as proved by Dr. S.P.Verma (P.W.- 7). Similarly, Ashok Kumar (P.W.-6) has also not corroborated the prosecution version. 9. In either case, the prosecution story has been successfully proved by Nand Kishore Tiwari (P.W.-1), whose statement gets corroboration from the injury reports (exhibit Ka 3) and (exhibit Ka 4) as proved by Dr. S.P.Verma (P.W.- 7). The Learned Trial Court has correctly considered the ocular evidence in the light of medical evidence and has observed that there are certain contradictions which are natural in nature. 10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly convicted the accused appellant, but submitted that the punishment of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused appellant and, in lieu of it, the appellant may be awarded enhanced punishment of fine. 11. I have considered the arguments placed by the learned counsel for accused appellant in the light of the nature of offence. Both, the learned counsel for appellant as well as learned A.G.A. agreed to the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly awarded the sentence of imprisonment but has not imposed any amount of fine, nor has awarded any amount of compensation to the complainant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error on the point of law. He has awarded the punishment of imprisonment in a traditional manner. The general estimation, reputation, opinion and impression about the criminal Courts, in the estimation of public, at large, is that they are convicting, acquitting, granting bail or refusing bail, issuing warrants etc. This is a traditional British mode of administration of criminal justice, though the expectation of the society and the demand of public mood is that the criminal Courts should deliver justice and do not pass orders in mechanical manner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge should have exhibited himself to be an activist Judge who takes care of all the persons involved in a litigation and pass order in such a fashion and, in such a way, that justice should appear to have been done between the parties. The rights of the victims should not be ignored. 12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly awarded the punishment of imprisonment but has omitted to award punishment of fine of any amount whatsoever. The rights of the victims should not be ignored. 12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly awarded the punishment of imprisonment but has omitted to award punishment of fine of any amount whatsoever. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge has overlooked the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Krishnan and the State of Haryana v. Sukbir Singh and others, AIR 1988 SC 2127 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that power of imposing fine intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is to some extent a constructive approach to crime and a step forward in a criminal justice system. It is because of this that it was recommended that all criminal Courts should exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice, by cautioning that the amount of compensation to be awarded must be reasonable. While holding this the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in Sarup Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2452 . The Court further emphasized that the amount of compensation was enhanced taking into consideration the gravity of the injury, the strata to which the accused belongs, the milieu in which the crime has taken place and, further, keeping in view, the cry of the society for the victims, at large. In Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, AIR 1999 SC 3762 , it was held that while fixing the quantum of compensation, the Magistrate should consider what would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the complainant. 13. People, by and large, are rapidly loosing confidence in the criminal judicial system; victims feel ignored and are crying for attention for justice and; there is a demand that the system must focus on justice to victims, as well. A traditional judicial system must take note of the pulse of the society at large. Courts are part of the society and cannot overlook the will of the people; underneath there is a feeling which advocates replacement of the vertical criminal judicial system by a “horizontal line of justice” where the punishment system is sought to be substituted by a system which gives a central role for the victims. 14. Courts are part of the society and cannot overlook the will of the people; underneath there is a feeling which advocates replacement of the vertical criminal judicial system by a “horizontal line of justice” where the punishment system is sought to be substituted by a system which gives a central role for the victims. 14. A practical aspect of the matter is that though maintenance of law and order is a State subject, yet the victim is a complainant who activates the machinery of the Criminal justice system by bringing evidence and information about illegal acts to the attention of the authorities. If the police activates in actual operation, as required by law of the land, the victim, then plays an additional role as a witness for the prosecution and helping the State to secure a conviction. 15. Since crime is conceptuated as an event that threatened and offended the entire community, and was prosecuted by the State on behalf of the people, the actual victim is treated like just another piece of evidence, a mere exhibit to be discarded after the trial. The time is over-ripe to redress, restore & readjust the injustice and imbalance to the crime victims by the Judges, the prosecutors and probation officers etc. Every instrument of State machinery, in general and, Judges in particular, should ensure explicit standards of fair treatment to protect the interests of victims and witnesses. The victims ought to receive reimbursement from one source or the other. 16. The penal philosophy in India is derived from the British model which is based upon concept of prevention of crime and treatment and rehabilitation of criminals. Victims who suffer injustice silently, have no rights, and, in extreme cases, depend upon the mercy of police officers. 17. The victims ought to receive reimbursement from one source or the other. 16. The penal philosophy in India is derived from the British model which is based upon concept of prevention of crime and treatment and rehabilitation of criminals. Victims who suffer injustice silently, have no rights, and, in extreme cases, depend upon the mercy of police officers. 17. The Courts have to draw a silver lining between offenders and offended (victims) through affirmative action; and take a lead to compensate and reimburse the victims under the existing provisions of the Penal Code contained in Chapter-III, Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 & other Special Statutes where provision of imposition of fine is prescribed, pending draft of ‘Victims Assistance Bill’ to become statute, prepared by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, under National Human Rights Commission, with a view, that no citizen should feel ignored by applying psycho-social coping model’, the dynamic component of which should be (I) prevention (ii)action and (iii) Reappraisal with a will to eliminate and reduce stress in the society, at large. 18. The Courts should take note of the fact that the Parliament has amended section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to entitle a complainant, in a criminal case to file appeal in case, the accused gets acquittal or gets lesser punishment or impose inadequate compensation, so as to indulge the victim in the process of justice. 19. Victims have a valid interest in prosecution of the case and should be involved, at all stages, of the proceedings. Talking, day in and day out, about interest of the accused, and neglecting the victims, is resulting in hostility of victims and ultimately acquittal, which is eroding the majesty of law and justice. 20. Current situation of criminal justice deserve to cope with international standards so as to cement the fact that Judges, by and large, are sympathetic and not alien to victims. It will reflect transparency and honesty in the corridors of Justice. As early as in 1983, the Apex Court has recognized the need of State compensation in cases of abuse of power by State machinery, in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086 , Similarly, in Saheli, a women’s Resources Centre through Mrs. Nalini Bhanot v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1990 SC 513 , compensation was granted to victim’s mother. 21. Nalini Bhanot v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1990 SC 513 , compensation was granted to victim’s mother. 21. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 , it was held, “To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience.” 22. Under Clause- 12 of the U.N. Declaration, the onus is on the state to “endevour to provide financial compensation to both the victims who have suffered bodily injury or impairment of physical or mental health as a result of serious crimes as well as the family of those who have died as a result of victimization.” 23. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened, where necessary, to enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms. 24. Victims deserve to be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, for the harm that they have suffered. The term ‘victim’ also includes the immediate family or dependents of the direct victim and individuals who have suffered harm while trying to prevent victimization. 25. It is a weakness of our jurisprudence that victims of crime and the dependents of the victims do not attract the attention of law, the victims reparation is still the vanishing point of our law. However, the concept of “awarding compensation” has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases mentioned above. In the case of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1525 , it was held that while awarding compensation, it is necessary for the Court to decide whether the case is fit enough to award compensation. If the case is found fit for compensation, then the capacity of the accused to pay the fixed amount has to be determined. 26. In view of the law as discussed above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case which dates back to the year 2002, I find that the ends of justice would successfully meet if the accused appellant is awarded punishment already undergone by him and, he may be imposed the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 27. 10,000/-. 27. The accused appellant shall pay fine within 30 days from the receipt of record by the Learned Trial Court, which, shall in turn pay the amount so deposited as compensation to the complainant, without delay, and in case of his death to his/her legal representatives. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.. 28. The Office is directed to send the lower Court’s record alongwith copy of the judgment to the learned Trial Court, without delay, so as to ensure that it reaches the Learned Trial Court within fifteen days from today. 29. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of, in such a fashion that it is partly allowed. The conviction is confirmed but the sentence is modified as stated above. ——————