Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 515 (ALL)

Jagai v. State of U. P.

2014-02-13

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2014
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. – This revision has been filed against the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 5, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2009, Jagai and others v. State of U.P. whereby the judgment and order dated 27.3.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Court No. 25, Azamgarh in case No. 2052 of 2006 under sections 147,352,323,325 and 506 IPC P.S. Jahanganj, District Azamgarh has been confirmed. Both the orders are under challenge. 2. Heard Sri S.K.A. Rizvi learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA on behalf of the State. I have perused the record including the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below. 3. It appears from the perusal of the record that three accused-revisionist had been found guilty by the Judicial Magistrate under sections 147, 323 and 352 IPC because the evidence produced by the prosecution was found sufficient and reliable worth acting upon in proof of the aforesaid charges. But looking to the over all circumstances of the case and also the age of one of accused Santu learned Magistrate deemed it fit to take a liberal view of the matter. Judging on the point of sentence compassionately learned Lower Court decided to release the accused in accordance with the Provision of Offenders Act, 1958 on filing of personal bond of Rs. 10000/- and surety bonds in the like amount. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment die accused-revisionists filed an appeal against the Trial Court's order but the same did not find favour with the Appellate Court and as a result thereof the order of the Lower Court was affirmed and the appeal got dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the revisionists has tried to persuade the Court chiefly on the ground of mercy. His contention is that looking to the advance age of the accused-revisionist, specially that of revisionist No. 3 who according to him is an octogenarian, a more compassionate view ought to have been taken and the revisionists be allowed to go scot-free. Submission is that the impugned order looks harsh and the conviction casts stigma on the character of the revisionist. Not much has been said on the point of the merit of the case which may be termed as substantial or worth discussing. 6. Submission is that the impugned order looks harsh and the conviction casts stigma on the character of the revisionist. Not much has been said on the point of the merit of the case which may be termed as substantial or worth discussing. 6. Learned AGA in rebuttal sought to press the argument that already the offences committed by the offenders have been adjudged lightly and the accused have not been allowed to under go even a days imprisonment. No amount of fine has been awarded by Lower Court. The contention of the AGA is that the case should not be judged only from the point of view of the accused but it ought also to be judged in the perspective of the pain suffered by the victims of the prosecution side. Judging the crime too liberally would in fact frustrate the whole scheme of the administration of justice and the entire legal process will be brought to a naught in such a situation. According to the AGA the Court has delivered justice only to the accused and not to the sufferers at their hands. 7. I have gone through both impugned orders and find that there is hardly anything which may attract any serious criticism against them. The orders contains sound reasoning and correct analysis of facts and law both. Learned Counsel has not been able to point out any error of law or any such serious misreading or misevaluation of evidence done by either of the Courts below. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments so far as the merit is concerned. It is an accepted and time honoured judicial convention of the Court that unless there is some illegality pointed out in the impugned orders or there is some such perversity shown in evaluating the facts of the case which be said to have resulted in miscarriage of justice, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is loathe to interfere with the judgment given by the Lower Court. There is absolutely no perversity in the judgment and the findings recorded by both the Courts are neither against the weight of evidence nor there appears to be any miscarriage of justice either. 8. There is absolutely no perversity in the judgment and the findings recorded by both the Courts are neither against the weight of evidence nor there appears to be any miscarriage of justice either. 8. It may be apt to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others, Cr. App. No. 118 of 2006 which reiterated that criminal law should ensure protection of society by imposing punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the accused. The Court emphasized thus: "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 criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment." 9. It is true that justice tempered with mercy is an upright and laudable judicial principle but the Judicial Courts are not the forums where the Presiding Officer can act unguided by facts and law relating to the case. Judging the matter liberally in a given case has to be a judicial exercise and not the exercise of some unbridled prerogative unconnected with the facts and circumstances of matter in question. The judicial treatment meeted out to the revisionist is itself quite a liberal exercise done by both the Courts below and any further interference, mitigation or extenuation in the same would be arbitrariness on judicial side which this Court has certainly no inclination to exercise or indulge into. 10. Revision is sans merit and is hereby rejected. Revision Rejected.