JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—This revision has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 31.3.1986 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 1985 confirming the Judgment and order dated 28.9.1985 passed by the II Assistant Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 34 of 1985 convicting the accused revisionists under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentencing Lakhpat to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- with defaulting clause and sentencing Gajraj under Section 307/34 Cr.P.C. to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with defaulting clause. 2. The revisionist No. 2 died during the revision, hence, proceeding against him were abated. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.11.1983 at 7 p.m. the complainant Ramesh was sitting in his shop at Village Nagaria Udaibhan, Police Station Arnia District Bulandshahr and his wife was also present in the shop. Suddenly Gajraj Lakhpat, Ghamand Pal Singh and Mangaldeo Sharma came to the shop of the complainant and Gajraj shouted that there was occasion to kill Ramesh upon which Lakhpat fired from his gun at Ramesh, and Ghamand Pal Singh and Mangaldeo, who were armed with lathis, asserted to assault the witnesses, who had come in the gali. The fired shot hit Ramesh in his neck. The accused ran away when many persons came to the place of occurrence making hue and cry to save Ramesh. Some days before the occurrence, Surender Singh, the son of Gajraj Singh had murdered Veerpal Singh, the elder brother of the Ramesh and there was also an old enmity due to which the present incident had occurred. 4. Regarding the incident Jagan Singh, after getting a report scribed through Mahendra Pal Sharma, presented it to the police station on 25.11.1983 at 4.45 p.m. upon which the F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons and the charge-sheet was filed. 5. The charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Jagan Singh, P.W.2 Ramesh injured witness, P.W. 3 Banshi, P.W. 4 Investingating Officer Mahtab Singh and P.W.5 Dr. Ravi Kumar Sharma. 7. 5. The charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Jagan Singh, P.W.2 Ramesh injured witness, P.W. 3 Banshi, P.W. 4 Investingating Officer Mahtab Singh and P.W.5 Dr. Ravi Kumar Sharma. 7. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied having been involved in the offence and said that they have been implicated due to the enmity on false ground. The accused Gajraj Singh stated that the whole family of Ramesh are criminals and he was falsely implicated due to enmity. No evidence was adduced in defence. 8. The learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the impugned sentence against which Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 1985 was preferred which was decided by the appellate Court and while dismissing the appeal, the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist has come in the present revision. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. 10. Under Section 397, the High Court possesses the general power of superintendence over the actions of Courts subordinate to it which discretionary power when administered on administration side, is known as the power of superintendence and on the judicial side as the power of revision. In exercise of discretionary powers conferred on the High Court under the provisions of this Section, the High Court can, at any stage, on its own motion, if it so desires and certainly when illegalities and irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them. The words in the Section are, however, very general and they empower the High Court to call for the record of a case not only when it intends to satisfy itself about the correctness of any finding, sentence or order but also as to the regularity of any proceeding of any subordinate Court as has been laid down in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, 1992 (4) SCC 305 . 11. 11. It is well settled principle of law that the Revisional Court does not exercise jurisdiction as wide as that of the appellate Court and under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is required to exercise its powers where there is material irregularity or manifest error of law or procedure, or where there is misconception or misreading of evidence or where the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction wrongly and perversely or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any offence. Taking this proposition broadly, it is well settled that the Revisional Court may be justified in cases to interfere (i) where the decision is grossly erroneous; (ii) where there is no compliance with the provisions of law; (iii) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence on record; (iv) where the material evidence of parties has not been considered; (v) where the Court below has misread or mis-appreciated the evidence on record; and (vi) where the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 12. Thus, the Court should not exercise the revisional jurisdiction to reassess the evidence and reappraise the evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 98 , has laid down that the High Court while hearing revision does not work as an appellate Court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring mistake is pointed out to show that injustice has been done. 13. In Munni Devi v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 2002 SC 107 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that while exercising the revisional power the High Court has no authority to re-appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial Court and appellate Courts are required to do. 14. The powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. are as under : “401. 14. The powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. are as under : “401. High Court’s powers of revision.—(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by Section 392. (2) No order under this Section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.” 15. Thus, keeping in mind the scope of revision, this case is being taken up. In State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others, (2004) 7 SCC 659 , it has been held that Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the sessions Court. It is for the purpose, as set out in Section 379 that if necessary, the High Court or sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. It is for the purpose, as set out in Section 379 that if necessary, the High Court or sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. The High Court is required to exercise as restraint in revision under Section 397. It would not be proper that the High Court should exceed its revisional jurisdiction by embarking upon in depth re-examination of the oral and medical evidence. 16. I have examined the evidence of P.W. 1 Jagan Singh, P.W. 2 Ramesh (injured witness), P.W.3 Banshi, P.W.4 Mehtab Singh Yadav, P.W. 5 Dr. Ravi Kumar Sharma. The evidence given by all these witnesses is in conformity and it could not be shown by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there was any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in appraisal of evidence or in the Judgment. 17. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the sentence imposed may be reduced and the accused may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him which is about two years and the accused is still in jail. 18. On the point of reduction of sentence, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar and others v. State, 2010 Law Suit (All) 3018, in which it has been held that the appellant No. 2 in their case was 90 years of age at the time of Judgment and the appellant No. 1 was 51 years of age at the time of Judgment, and thus, the sentence was reduced. The first injured in this case had suffered four lacerated wounds on the front side of patela, on the legs and one abrasion on the outer side knee point; the second injured had suffered seven lacerated wounds on the face and right leg; the third injured had suffered abrasions on the right leg and on the front side of left thigh; the fourth injured had suffered two lacerations and one swelling; the fifth injured had suffered one abrasion; and the sixth injured had suffered lacerated wound on right side of face. 19. 19. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2011 Law Suit (SC) 370. In this case also, the Supreme Court was pleased to reduce the sentence and the convicts were ordered to be released on the period already undergone. In this case also one of the accused suffered one incised wound on the occipital region and six contused lacerated wounds on the head and occipital region and one contusion on the right face; the other injured sustained three contusions and one scratch on the neck; and the third injured sustained two contusions on the chest and the back with one swelling and tenderness on the left hand. 20. The injuries sustained by the injured in the case at hand are as follows : “1. Entry wound of firearm of 5 cm x 3.5 cm x through & through the exit wound of firearm, on the front of the right part of neck, a bit below the mandible’s curve. Margins were inverted, fresh blood and densely clotted blood was present. Blackening and tattooing around the injury was present. 2. Exit wound of firearm in the area of 6 cm x 5 cm on the rear part of neck. The area of largest wound was 2 cm x 1 cm while that of smaller was ½ cm x ½ cm. Densely clotted blood was present. This injury was related to injury No. 1 and was caused by any firearm.” 21. Thus, in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (supra), the injuries sustained by the injured were on the head whereas in the present case the injuries are on a very vital part, i.e., on the neck. 22. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a Judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. v. Siya Ram and another, 2010 Law Suit (SC) 897, which is not relevant for the decision of the present case as it was no injury case. 23. Perusal of the record of the present case shows that the accused Lakhpat was 18 years of age on 17.9.1985 when his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus, he is about 46 years of age at present. 24. 23. Perusal of the record of the present case shows that the accused Lakhpat was 18 years of age on 17.9.1985 when his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus, he is about 46 years of age at present. 24. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and others, Criminal Appeal No. 603-604 of 2013, that the law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. The relevant part of the Judgment are as under : “The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict. Sentencing Policy : (7) The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases. (8) The factual matrix of this case is similar to the facts and circumstances of the case in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 2 SCC 359 , wherein the accused was convicted under Section 307/114 IPC and for the same the trial Court sentenced the accused for 10 years. However, the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. In this case, this Court held that the sentence imposed is not proportionate to the offence committed, hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court observed thus : “7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the Courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of “order” should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that : “State of criminal law continues to be - as it should be -a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.” Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.” (9) This position was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254 , wherein it was observed as follows : “99.....The object of awarding appropriate sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence, which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. 100. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. 100. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong.” In this case, the Court further goes to state that meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society. (10) In Jameel v. State of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532 , this Court reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, this Court observed thus : “15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 16. It is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. 16. It is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.” (11) In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734 , while discussing the concept of appropriate sentence, this Court expressed that : “It is the duty of the Court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored.” (12) Recently, this Court in Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, JT 2013 (3) SC 444 held as under : “18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.....” 25. Thus, it is reiterated that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. It is reiterated that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. 26. With these principles, it has to be considered whether the sentences imposed by the impugned Judgment fall within the parameter of the established principles. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. 26. With these principles, it has to be considered whether the sentences imposed by the impugned Judgment fall within the parameter of the established principles. The injury report has been specified earlier. It think it is just by the grace of God that the injured was alive otherwise the accused had all intention to kill him. The injuries were caused on the person of Ramesh with the gun and the motive behind the offence is said to be previous enmity, which has been proved on record and even previously the accused had fired at the present injured Ramesh. All the witnesses of fact have categorically supported the prosecution version and there is no inconsistency in the statement. Perusal of the injury report of Ramesh shows that the bullet went through and through the neck of the injured. There is no reason why the injured witness would falsely implicate the present accused and let the real culprit go scot free. It is well settled law that the evidence of relative witnesses should be scrutinized with care and caution but only fact that they are related is not good ground to throw away their evidence. 27. The accused Lakhpat has been charge-sheeted individually for causing the injury on the neck of Ramesh with an intention and knowledge and under such circumstances and that if by act he had caused death of said Ramesh. he had been guilty of murder. In trial Court after detailed analysis of the evidence of doctors and other witnesses, convicted the accused Lakhpat for four years’ rigorous imprisonment coupled with Rs. 2000/- fine with defaulting clause. The other accused, who has since died, was convicted under Section 304/34 for three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine. 28. It is clear that both the Courts below took note of the fact that as per medical evidence injury No. 1 shown in the medical report of Ramesh was found to be grievous and was declared as dangerous to life. Mere ground of long pending trial is not justified in reduction of sentence. It is well settled that proper sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of trial Court, which discretion has to be exercised on sound principles. Mere ground of long pending trial is not justified in reduction of sentence. It is well settled that proper sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of trial Court, which discretion has to be exercised on sound principles. Various relevant circumstances which have a bearing on the question of sentence have to be kept in view. Before deciding the quantum of sentence, it has to be kept in mind as to whether the Sessions Judge has failed to hear both the side as required by the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 29. In an appeal against the conviction, it is open to the High Court to alter or modify or reduce the sentence after confirming conviction. If the High Court is of the opinion that the sentence is heavy or unduly harsh or requires to be modified, the same must be done on well recognised judicial dicta. A perusal of the appellate Court Judgment also shows that the appellate Court did not find any valid ground to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court. The revisionist Lakhpat Singh has wielded dangerous weapon like fire arm gun. The only fortune part of the offence is that the victim escaped the death. The offence committed by the revisionist is proved to be one under Section 307 I.P.C. punishable with imprisonment for life. The Hon’ble Apex Court has said that if the offence is under Section 307 I.P.C., i.e., attempt to commit the murder, which is punishable with imprisonment for life and the sentence to be awarded is imprisonment for three months, it is better not to award substantive sentence as it makes mockery of justice. If in stead of awarding substantive sentence fines are imposed and injured are compensated, it would mean that if your pockets can afford, commit serious crime, offer to pay heavy fine and escape tentacles of law. Power of wealth need not extend to overawe Court processes. 30. Upon the careful consideration of the material on record and in view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders of the Courts below. I find nothing from the perusal of the Judgment of the Courts below that material evidence on record has been misread or mis-appreciated. 30. Upon the careful consideration of the material on record and in view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders of the Courts below. I find nothing from the perusal of the Judgment of the Courts below that material evidence on record has been misread or mis-appreciated. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, which call for no interference by this Court. There is no ground for reduction of sentence also. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 32. Let the lower Court record be transmitted back to the Court below alongwith the copy of this order for taking necessary action. —————