Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 700 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. YUDHISHTHIR SINGH

2017-03-06

AJAI LAMBA, VIJAY LAXMI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Yudhishthir Singh is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri B.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent Yudhishthir Singh on quantum of sentence. It is submitted by Mr. Sahai that presently accused Yudhishthir Singh is 82 years of age. The respondent is suffering from neuro problems, he cannot even walk without support and due to infirmity he deserves mercy. Yudhishthir Singh was lecturer in Mahatma Gandhi, Inter College, Safipur, Unnao who retired from the post of Principal. As a Principal he earned name and fame whose conduct was excellent. He got an appraisal letter and teachers honour certificate which is annexure SA2 on record. The occurrence is of the year 1978 to which 38 years have elapsed. 3. The occurrence took place 38 years ago. The appeal against acquittal was filed in January, 1982. Presently the convict is 82 years of age. In the interregnum period the respondent served as a Lecturer and a Principal. We are conscious that the crime is affront to the human dignity, however, considering the old age of the respondent convict and the willingness of the respondent to pay compensation and the long lapse of period are indeed considerations which may weigh in favour of the respondent for not being awarded a long sentence of imprisonment. But then the interest of the victim of the crime have also to be kept in view. Keeping in view the consideration of the human factor involved and the interests of the victims to whom mere imprisonment of respondent at this belated stage would not offer much solace, it is necessary to strike a balance between these disparate considerations and keeping in view the fact that the respondent is willing to pay compensation to the victims, it would be appropriate to confine his sentence of imprisonment to already undergone and to invoke the provision of Section 357 Cr.P.C. Section 357 Cr.P.C. provides basic frame work for compensation to the victims. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has urged all the Courts time and again to exercise this power liberally which was intended to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system and to meet the ends of justice in a better way. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has urged all the Courts time and again to exercise this power liberally which was intended to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system and to meet the ends of justice in a better way. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, 1988 the Supreme Court urged all courts to exercise their power under Section 357 Cr.P.C. liberally to safeguard the interests of the victim. In this case, the victim and his relatives were attacked by seven persons in the field. The victim received severe head injuries which impaired his speech permanently. The accused were convicted by trial court under Secs 307, 323 and 325 of IPC read with Section 149 and sentenced to imprisonment for three to four years. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two accused and quashed the conviction of other five accused under Section 307/149 IPC, but maintained their conviction under Section 325/149 IPC. The accused persons were granted probation and each was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2500/- to victim. On appeal, the Supreme Court did not disturb the sentence of imprisonment but ordered the accused persons to jointly pay a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. recording following reasons: It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was 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 of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. 5. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. 5. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 the Supreme Court went a step further and observed that the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. To quote: While the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused. Capacity of the accused to pay which constitutes an important aspect of any order Under Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary unless of course the facts as emerging in the course of the trial are so clear that the court considers it unnecessary to do so. Such an enquiry can precede an order on sentence to enable the court to take a view, both on the question of sentence and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or his/her family. 6. In K.A. Abbas H.S.A. v. Sabu Joseph, 2010 the Apex Court made it clear that the whole purpose of the provision is to accommodate the interests of the victims in the criminal justice system. Sometimes the situation becomes such that no purpose is served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead directing the accused to pay an amount of compensation to the victim or affected party can ensure delivery of total justice. Sometimes the situation becomes such that no purpose is served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead directing the accused to pay an amount of compensation to the victim or affected party can ensure delivery of total justice. Therefore, this grant of compensation is sometimes in lieu of sending a person behind bars or in addition to a very light sentence of imprisonment. 7. In the instant case, the 5 victims are the sufferers who should not be forgotten by merely maintaining the sentence of imprisonment on the accused who is now 82 years of age. Considering the nature of the crime, the fact that the accused and the victims were neighbours, the fact that the accused is 82 years of age and is admittedly in a position to pay, it is a fit case to invoke Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. and it would be appropriate to impose fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 307 I.P.C. out of which Rs.20,000/- shall be paid as compensation to 5 victims each. It would be appropriate in the interest of justice that the sentence of imprisonment for the offences under Sections 307 and 427 I.P.C., be confined to the period already undergone. 8. Having an overall consideration of the fact situations and also the time lag in between, we are of the view that the sentence of imprisonment of respondent Yudhishthir Singh, A1 for the offences under Sections 307 and 427 I.P.C. is confined to the period already undergone to meet the ends of justice. In addition he will pay Rs.1,00,000/- as fine under Section 307 I.P.C. out of which Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to 5 victims each as compensation. The respondent Yudhishthir Singh is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) in the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao within 45 days from today. On receipt of the deposit the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao shall release Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each to the 5 injured persons. In case of non deposit by the respondent convict, he shall be required to undergo 6 months imprisonment. 9. Let a copy of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be sent to I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao.