Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 699 (CAL)

P. Krishnamaraju v. State

2013-09-19

ASIM KUMAR MONDAL, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2013
JUDGMENT Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. These appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 15th November, 2011 and also sentence order dated 16th November, 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, A & N Islands, Port Blair in Special Case No.4 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the accused persons namely, P. Krishnamaraju (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.008 of 2011), Abdul Rasheed (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.003 of 2012), M.J. Vijayan (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.001 of 2012) and Abdul Salam (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.002 of 2012) were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code amongst others and sentenced as hereunder:- “That P. Krishnamaraju was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 409 of Indian Penal Code. P. Krishnamaraju was also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Abdul Rasheed was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 120 B read with section 409 of Indian Penal Code. Abdul Rasheed was also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default simple imprisonment for 1 month for the charge under section 8(2) read with section 7 of Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation (Amendment) 1956. M.J. Vijayan was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 120 B read with section 409 of India Penal Code. M.J. Vijayan was also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default simple imprisonment for 1 month for the charge under section 8(2) read with section 7 of Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation (Amendment) 1956. Abdul Salam was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 120 B read with section 409 IPC. The learned Judge further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Abdul Salam was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 120 B read with section 409 IPC. The learned Judge further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention of all the convicts during trial shall be set off under section 428 Criminal Procedure Code.” By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15th November, 2011, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused M.P. Arun. Challenging the said order of acquittal an appeal has also been filed by the State being Government Appeal No.001 of 2012. The aforesaid appeals were heard analogously since the same arise out of a common judgment and order dated 15th November, 2011. The prosecution version is that a news item was published in the local daily namely “Aspect” on 2nd March, 2011 regarding leakage of question paper of AISS Examination, 2011 in respect of Science stream. The aforesaid news item, published in the news paper “Aspect”, drew the attention of the Administration. In order to verify the correctness of the said news item, Mr. Sashi Kumar, Nodal Officer of Central Board of Secondary Education, A & N Islands and also the Assistant Director of Education, A & N Islands, who was at Car Nicobar on 3rd March, 2011, conducted preliminary examination of the packets of question papers kept in the strong room of Car Nicobar P.S. and thereafter, lodged a written complaint at Car Nicobar P.S. On the basis of the said written complaint, a case being Car Nicobar P.S. Case No.13 of 2011 was registered on 3rd March, 2011 under Section 406/420/468/470 of IPC. On the basis of the investigation, a prima facie case was made out against all the accused persons namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam, Abdul Rasheed and M.P. Arun. Thereafter, on 24th June, 2011, upon considering the materials on record and also hearing both the parties, charges were framed against all the aforesaid five accused persons. In order to prove the case of the prosecution as many as 64 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused persons also examined six defence witnesses in support of their case. The prosecution also adduced several documents and material exhibits in support of the prosecution case. The accused persons also adduced some documentary evidences. In order to prove the case of the prosecution as many as 64 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused persons also examined six defence witnesses in support of their case. The prosecution also adduced several documents and material exhibits in support of the prosecution case. The accused persons also adduced some documentary evidences. Having heard the learned advocate of the respective parties and also considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses of both the parties and further considering the documents as well as other material exhibits, the learned Special Judge found accused P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed guilty for commission of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet. The learned Special Judge, however, held that the accused M.P. Arun is entitled to get the benefit of doubt in this case. Scrutinizing the materials and evidence on record, we are also of the opinion that the offences alleged in respect of the four accused persons namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed have been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Special Judge was justified in convicting the aforesaid four accused persons namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed. We do not find any error and/or infirmity in the findings of the learned Special Judge in respect of the accused persons. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the accused persons namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed are in order and the learned Special Judge was justified in convicting aforesaid four accused persons and granting benefit of doubt to the other accused person namely, M.P. Arun. We find that the learned Special Judge in a very detailed and well considered judgment convicted the aforesaid four accused persons and granted benefit of doubt to the accused M.P. Arun. We have no hesitation to hold that the findings of the learned Special Judge are just and proper and therefore we affirm the decision of the learned Special Judge regarding conviction of the aforesaid four accused persons namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed and also the benefit of doubt granted by the learned Special Judge in favour of the accused M.P. Arun. The aforesaid four accused persons namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the learned Special Judge apart from payment of fine. Serious objections were raised on behalf of each one of the convicts with regard to the punishment of life imprisonment awarded by the learned Special Judge. On behalf of the convicts it was specifically submitted that the learned Special Judge did not award proper punishment in the facts of the present case. It has been specially urged before this Court that the sentence of life imprisonment in respect of each one of the aforesaid convicts is excessive and highly disproportionate to the offence committed by the said convicts. Mr. Mandal, learned advocate for the State however strongly denied and disputed the aforesaid claim of the convicts and submitted that the learned Special Judge awarded proper punishment in respect of the convicts. Mr. Mandal further submitted that the learned Special Judge should have also held the acquitted accused M.P. Arun guilty of the charges levelled against him. In respect of the acquitted accused M.P. Arun, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the learned Special Judge as we have already held that the learned Special Judge has rightly granted the benefit of doubt in his favour. However, it is to be considered whether the learned Special Judge was justified in awarding life imprisonment to the aforesaid four convicts namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed. On examination of the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Special Judge we find that the said learned Special Judge did not at all take into consideration of the fact that all the aforesaid four convicts had no criminal antecedent. Furthermore, the aforesaid four convicts have already been dismissed from service due to the aforesaid conviction in the criminal case. The said convicts will neither be reinstated in service nor can be considered for employment in any other government or semi-government organisation in future. Reformation should also be the one of the principal objects of punishment which a Judge cannot forget. In the case of Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1926, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer observed:- “5. Reformation should also be the one of the principal objects of punishment which a Judge cannot forget. In the case of Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1926, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer observed:- “5. If every saint has a past, every sinner has a future, and it is the role of law to remind both of this. ... ... ... ...” Subsequently, in the case of State of Gujarat and another v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat reported in 1998 Cri.L.J. 4561 a three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:- “32. Theory of reformation through punishment is grounded on the sublime philosophy that every man is born good but circumstances transform him into a criminal. The aphorism that “if every saint has a past every sinner has a future” is a tested philosophy concerning human life. V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. has taken pains to ornately fresco the reformative profile of the principles of sentencing in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287 : ( AIR 1977 SC 1926 ). ... ... ... ... 33. Reformation should hence be the dominant objective of a punishment and during incarceration every effort should be made to recreate the good man out of convicted prisoner. ... ... ... ... ...” Therefore, coming to the sentence part, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid important factors have been overlooked by the learned Special Judge while awarding punishment to the accused persons in the present case. On the totality of the circumstances we are of the opinion that the punishment awarded by the learned Special Court in respect of each one of the appellants namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed is excessive and should be reduced. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and specially considering the aforesaid relevant factors, we are of the opinion that custodial sentence for the period already undergone by the aforesaid four convicts namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each one of the aforesaid convicts is reduced to the period already undergone by each one of them without, however, making any change in the sentence of fine including the default clause. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each one of the aforesaid convicts is reduced to the period already undergone by each one of them without, however, making any change in the sentence of fine including the default clause. Appeals preferred by the aforesaid four convicts namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed are, therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid modification of sentence. In the result, it is held that:- (1) Government Appeal No.001 of 2012 filed by the State against M.P. Arun is dismissed. The bail bond executed by M.P. Arun in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court stands discharged accordingly. (2) The conviction of each one of the appellants namely, P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed is upheld and the sentence is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by each one of the said appellants without, however, making any change in the sentence of fine including the default clause. With the aforesaid modification of the sentence in respect of each one of the aforesaid convicts, Criminal Appeals being Nos.008 of 2011, 001 of 2012, 002 of 2012 and 003 of 2012 filed by the convicts P. Krishnamaraju, M.J. Vijayan, Abdul Salam and Abdul Rasheed respectively are dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent down to the learned Special Judge together with a copy of this judgment immediately for taking necessary steps. I agree.