Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 129 (ALL)

Prahlad Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-01-19

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellants namely Prahlad Singh, Man Singh, Talukdar Singh and Mahant Singh against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2002 passed by learned Additional and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 30, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 745 of 1998(case crime No. 87 of 1995 under Section 307 , 504 and 506 I.P.C., police station Subeha, district Barabanki)convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 324 /34 I.P.C. for a period of two years' R.I. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 10.12.1995 complainant and his wife were proceeding to attend the meeting, which was to be held for construction of new road and when they reached near 'Meennagar', appellants namely Prahlad Singh, Talukdar Singh, Man Singh and Mahant Singh of their village, who were hiding, came out and in order to kill them, appellant Prahlad Singh hurled bomb which got burst and complainant got injured. The second bomb which dropped nearby his wife did not burst. On hearing the sound of bursting of hand-grenade, complainant's brother Lallan Prasad, mother and other villagers reached at the spot and accused appellants fled away. They abused complainant and his wife and also threatened with dire consequences. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 11.10 a.m. 3. The investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was submitted against accused persons under Sections 307/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The accused denied charges framed against them and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined complainant P.W. 1 Jagjeevan, P.W. 2 Hanuman Lalee wife of the complainant, P.W. 3 Constable Arjun Prasad, P.W. 4 Dr. Jayant Singh, P.W. 5 Investigating Officer Amar Singh. 5. The statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who stated that they have been implicated due to enmity and the witnesses have falsely deposed against them. Accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence. P.W. 1 complainant Jagjeevan reiterated the contents of the F.I.R. PW. 2 supported the prosecution version. P.W. 3 proved the chick F.I.R. and G.D. entries. P.W. 4 Dr. Jayant Singh examined the injuries of P.W. 1 complainant Jagjeevan and proved the injury report (Ext. Ka-5). He found as many as six injuries on the person of the injured Jagjeevan. P.W. 1 complainant Jagjeevan reiterated the contents of the F.I.R. PW. 2 supported the prosecution version. P.W. 3 proved the chick F.I.R. and G.D. entries. P.W. 4 Dr. Jayant Singh examined the injuries of P.W. 1 complainant Jagjeevan and proved the injury report (Ext. Ka-5). He found as many as six injuries on the person of the injured Jagjeevan. He opined that all the injuries were simple and could be caused by blunt object and were one fourth day before old. 6. P.W. 5 Investigating Officer proved the charge-sheet. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned trial Court. 8. The scrutiny of the evidence as well as discussions made by the learned trial Court suggest that the learned trial Court has analyzed the evidence and reached to the correct conclusion that offence under Section 324 /34 I.P.C. is made out. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly convicted the accused appellants, but submitted that the punishment of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused appellants and, in lieu of it, the appellants may be awarded enhanced punishment of fine and compensation may be awarded to the injured. It has also been submitted that appellants are neither habitual offender nor previous convict, as such, a lenient view may be taken. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for accused appellants in the light of the nature of offence. Both, the learned counsel for appellants 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 awarded any amount of compensation to the injured. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error on point of law. He has awarded the punishment of imprisonment in a traditional 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. The unfortunate injured must be made to feel that the Court and accused have taken care of him. The rights of the victims should not be ignored. The unfortunate injured must be made to feel that the Court and accused have taken care of him. Any such measure which would give him succor is far better than a sentence by deterrence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the decision in Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that power of imposing fine is 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 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, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in Sarup Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 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 K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, reported in 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. 12. 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 1995, I find that the ends of justice would successfully meet if the accused appellants are awarded punishment already undergone by them and they may be imposed the sentence to pay a fine of rupees 2000/- each. The accused appellants shall pay fine within sixty days from the date of receipt of record by the learned trial Court, which, shall, in turn, pay the amount, so deposited, as compensation to the injured persons, without delay. The accused appellants shall pay fine within sixty days from the date of receipt of record by the learned trial Court, which, shall, in turn, pay the amount, so deposited, as compensation to the injured persons, without delay. In case of any casualty to the injured, his heir will get the amount of his share. In the event of default in payment of fine, the defaulting accused shall have to undergo imprisonment for six months. 13. The Office is directed to send the lower court record along with copy of the judgment to the learned trial court, without delay, so as to ensure that it reaches the learned trial court within twenty days from today. 14. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of, in such a fashion that it is partly allowed. The conviction is confirmed but the sentence is modified to the extent, as stated above.