Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2211 (ALL)

RAM PAL v. STATE

2017-09-19

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. 1. Heard Smt. Kanchan Chaudhary, learned amicus curiae for the appellant, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant Rampal against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.5, Shahjahanpur, in Session Trial No.626A of 2007 (State Vs. Suhel and others) arising out of Case Crime No.177 of 2005 under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police Station Banda, District Shahjahanpur, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/- under Section 395 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer additional six months imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Relevant to mention that by the impugned judgment, the appellant has been acquitted of charge under Section 412 IPC. 4. The prosecution story as discernible from the record and particularly, certified copy of the judgment appears to be that a report was lodged by the informant Balvindra Singh at Police Station Banda, District Shahajahanpur on 10.05.2005 regarding some dacoity committed by a number of persons including the appellant in the night intervening 09/10.05.2005 around 2:00 a.m. in the village Naraura within Police Station Banda, with the allegations that the dacoits armed with deadly weapon committed dacoity in the informant's house and caused injury on several members of the family, looted household articles and Rs.40,000/- cash. This report was noted down at Case Crime No.177 of 2005 under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC. 5. The investigation ensued and the Investigating Officer apart from taking note of entries made in the various papers recorded statement of the prosecution witnesses, prepared site plan and also took note of injury report of the injured Pappu and Sukhendra Singh. He collected simple and blood stained clay roll from the spot and prepared recovery memo of Danda (stick), empty cartridges and bullet 315 bore. The Investigating Officer also recovered three pairs of silver anklets and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant. 6. He collected simple and blood stained clay roll from the spot and prepared recovery memo of Danda (stick), empty cartridges and bullet 315 bore. The Investigating Officer also recovered three pairs of silver anklets and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant. 6. Pursuant thereto, proceedings were committed to the court of Sessions from where it was transferred for conduction and disposal of the case to the aforesaid trial court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.5, Shahjahanpur who in turn heard both the sides on point of charge and was prima-facie satisfied with case against the accused-appellant, accordingly, framed charges under Section 397, 395 IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant who abjured charges and opted for trial. 7. The prosecution was required to adduce its testimony and the case was posted for recording evidence for the prosecution but the appellant Rampal, in the meantime moved an application 9-Ka while in jail and raised plea of guilty and admitted charge. 8. In view of above, his case was separated from the other co-accused and it was separately numbered and decided by the trial court. Since the application 9-Ka was moved with request that the appellant confesses to have committed the offence, therefore, his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein also he stated that he voluntarily and out of free will is confessing his guilt. 9. While considering the confessional plea so raised, the trial court found sufficient ground to convict him under Sections 395, 397 IPC and awarded him sentence to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer additional six months imprisonment on the first count and seven years rigorous imprisonment on the second count, vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2007. 10. Consequently, this appeal. 11. It has been claimed by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant that the sentence so imposed on the appellant is too harsh and legality of the sentence has been questioned. Once the appellant confessed the crime, the trial court was not bound to accept the same and it could have asked the prosecution to prove its case. 11. It has been claimed by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant that the sentence so imposed on the appellant is too harsh and legality of the sentence has been questioned. Once the appellant confessed the crime, the trial court was not bound to accept the same and it could have asked the prosecution to prove its case. In case the trial court convicted the appellant on his plea of guilty, then a milder view ought to have been taken and lesser sentence ought to have been imposed on him but the sentence so awarded is too harsh, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law. 12. While retorting to the aforesaid argument, learned AGA has submitted that since the plea of confession was voluntarily raised by the appellant, the sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court is justified. The instant appeal lacks force. 13. Also considered above submissions. 14. The moot point involved for adjudicating this appeal relates to the fact whether the trial court was justified in recording conviction on the basis of confession made by the appellant and whether confessional statement was voluntary and outcome of free will of the accused ? 15. At this stage, this Court can advert to the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which categorically reflects that the appellant of his own free will and voluntarily confessed his guilt. May be, that contents of the application regarding plea of guilty were presented before the trial court under some erroneous impression but here the proceeding before the trial court, being open Court proceeding and the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been reached on account of the application 9-Ka moved by the appellant himself after appearing before the trial court from jail, the trial court put specific question regarding involuntariness of his plea of guilty whereupon he stated clearly that he of his own free will has raised the plea of guilty. 16. Once a plea of guilty is found to be free from outer influence and voluntary then the trial court can base conviction on it. 17. That way, conviction recorded by the trial court cannot be faulted with. Insofar as Section 397 IPC is concerned, it prescribes minimum sentence of 7 years. 16. Once a plea of guilty is found to be free from outer influence and voluntary then the trial court can base conviction on it. 17. That way, conviction recorded by the trial court cannot be faulted with. Insofar as Section 397 IPC is concerned, it prescribes minimum sentence of 7 years. Consequently, the sentence awarded by the trial court against the appellant cannot be said to be either excessive or harsh. 18. Upon wholesome consideration / scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the plea of guilty was made under any mis-impression by the appellant. Learned trial Judge has taken correct view of the fact, circumstances and evidence on record and has recorded just finding and has rightly sentenced the appellant which order of conviction and sentence needs no interference by this Court. 19. Thus the judgment and order dated 17.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.5, Shahjahanpur, in Session Trial No.626A of 2007 (State Vs. Suhel and others) arising out of Case Crime No.177 of 2005 under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police Station Banda, District Shahjahanpur is affirmed and upheld. 20. In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. 21. In this case, letter of the Superintendent, District Jail, Shahjahanpur, dated 26.05.2017 is indicative of fact that after suffering the entire sentence and deposition of the amount of fine, the appellant has been released from jail on 30.06.2012. Therefore, no consequential order need be passed at this juncture. 22. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for necessary information and follow up action.