Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 19 (ALL)

Suresh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2019-01-03

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2019
JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Case called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of the revisionist to address the Court. However, learned AGA is present. 2. The revisionist has filed the present criminal revision to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.5, Etah in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2013 (Suresh Kumar vs. State of U.P.) whereby the appeal was dismissed as well as the impugned order dated 22.12.2012, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate No.24, Etah in Case No.2080 of 2010 (State vs. Suresh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2008, u/s 452, 354, 504 IPC, Police Station Mirhachi, District Etah whereby he has been convicted u/s 452 IPC wherein sentenced for two years of simple imprisonment, u/s 354 IPC wherein sentenced for two years and u/s 504 IPC wherein sentenced for one year of simple imprisonment was awarded. 3. This criminal revision petition was earlier listed on 3.10.2013 before this Court when the following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned trial court without considering the entire material on record has illegally convicted the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 452,354 and 504 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years RI under Section 452 IPC, two years RI under Section 354 IPC and 1 year RI under Section 504 IPC. Admit on the question of sentence only. Notice on behalf of the State has already been received by the learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant has also appeared. Hence notice need not be issued. Summon the record of both the courts below at an early date and list thereafter for hearing. In the meantime the revisionist shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned in Criminal Case No. 2080 of 2010, State Vs. Suresh Kumar, Case Crime No.39/2008, under Sections 452, 354 and 504 IPC, PS Mirhachi, District Etah. Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed power on behalf of the informant. Let it be kept on record." 4. Today when the matter was called twice, none appears on behalf of the revisionist to address the Court. 5. Suresh Kumar, Case Crime No.39/2008, under Sections 452, 354 and 504 IPC, PS Mirhachi, District Etah. Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed power on behalf of the informant. Let it be kept on record." 4. Today when the matter was called twice, none appears on behalf of the revisionist to address the Court. 5. The revision petition is of the year 2013 and it cannot be kept pending for years together on the dilatory tactics of the learned counsel, therefore, I proceeded to decide the revision on merit and have also considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Lal Kapoor vs. Rajiv Thapar and others reported at, (2007) 7 SCC 623 wherein it has been held that criminal revision cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution and it must be decided on merits. 6. I have heard the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 7. 6. I have heard the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 7. The prosecution story of the present matter is as follows:- ^^la{ksi esa vfHk;kstu i{k dk dFku bl izdkj gS fd bl okn ds oknh fouksn dqekj iq= tqxsUnz flag fuoklh fl/kkoyh Fkkuk fejgph ftyk ,Vk }kjk ,d fyf[kr rgjhj Jheku Fkkuk/;{k fejgph ftyk ,Vk dks bl vk'k; dh nh fd oknh fouksn dqekj flag iq= Jh tqxsUnz iky flag fuoklh xzke fl/kkoyh dk jgus okyk gSA fnukad 28-02-2008 dks oknh dh iRuh o oknh dh yMdh fiz;adk ?kj ij ekStwn FkhA fnukad 28-02-2008 dks le; djhc 3-00 cts fnu lqjs'k dqekj iq= Jh iky flag fuoklh xzke fl/kkoyh oknh ds ?kj esa ?kql vk;k vkSj mlus oknh dh yMdh fiz;adk tks pkjikbZ ij cSBh Fkh brus esa lqjs'k dqekj iq= Jhiky flag vpkud oknh dh yMdh ds ikl igqapk mlus cnfu;rh ls mldh yMdh ij gkFk Mkyk vkSj gkFk idMdj dgk eq>s I;kj djks oknh dh yMdh fpYYkkbZ rHkh oknh dh eka ,dne nkSMdj vk;h rHkh eka dks ns[kdj Hkkxk eka mlds ihNs ihNs Hkkxh o fpYykbZ vkSj og xUnh xUnh xkfy;ka ns jgk Fkk vkSj dgk rq>s nksckjk ns[k ywaxk vkSj ;g dgrk gq, vius ?kj esa ?kql x;kA oknh ckjkr esa ckgj x;k gqvk Fkk vkt tc og ?kj ij vk;k rks mldh iRuh o yMdh fiz;adk us lkjk okD;k crk;kA vr% izkFkZuk gS fd ;g 'kkfrj fdLr dk vijk/kh gS vr% blds f[kykQ fjiksVZ fy[kdj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dk d"V djsaA rkfd mijksDr vfHk;qDr v?kU; ?kVuk dks vatke u ns ldsaA vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ih0MCyw0&1 fouksn dqekj oknh eqdnek ih0MCyw0&2 dq0 fiz;adk] ih0MCyw0&3 Jherh vuqike dqekjh ,oa ih0MCyw0&4 ,l0vkbZ0 d`".k eqjkjh ;kno dks ijhf{kr djk;k x;kA^^ 8. During the trial, Vinod Kumar (PW-1), Km. Priyanka (PW-2), Smt. Anupam Kumari (PW-3) and S.I. Krishna Murari, were examined. During the trial, Vinod Kumar (PW-1), Km. Priyanka (PW-2), Smt. Anupam Kumari (PW-3) and S.I. Krishna Murari, were examined. Their statements as referred in the judgment of trial court are as follows :- ^^ih0MCyw0&1 fouksn dqekj us vius c;ku dh eq[; ijh{kk esa dFku fd;k gS fd ?kVuk fnukad 28-02-2008 dks fnu ds rhu cts dh gSA ml fnu esjh iRuh o esjh yMdh fiz;adk ?kj ij ekStwn FkhA eS ckjkr esa x;k gqvk Fkk esjh csVh fiz;adk dejs es pkjikbZ ij cSBh gq;h FkhA fiz;adk dh eka vUnj dejs es jlksbZ ?kj esa Fkh rHkh lqjs'k iq= Jhiky flag esjs ?kj esa ?kql vk;k vkSj esjh yMdh fiz;adk dks cnfu;rh ls Nkrh ij gkFk Mky fn;k rFkk gkFk idM dj Hknznh xkfy;k nsrs gq, fiz;adk ls dgk fd eq>ls I;kj djks rks esjh yMdh fpYYkkbZ rHkh mldh eka nkSMdj vk x;h vkSj mudks ns[kdj lqjs'k Hknznh Hknznh xkfy;k nsrk gqvk Hkkxk vkSj og lqjs'k ds ihNs Hkkxh rHkh mlus /kedh vkSj Hknznh Hknznh xkfy;k nh vkSj dgk fd rq>s Hkh ns[k ywaxk tc eS ckjkr ls ykSVdj vk;k rks esjh iRuh us o yMdh us lkjh ckr crk;h rc eSus bl okD;k dh fjiksVZ fy[kdj Fkkuk fejgph esa nh tks dkxt la0 5 v gSA tks esjs ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gS ftl ij izn'kZ d& Mkyk x;kA njksxk th us eq>ls iwNrkN dh FkhA^^ ih0MCyw0 2 fiz;adk ihfMrk us vius 'kliFk c;ku dh eq[; ijh{kk es dFku fd;k gS fd ?kVuk fnukad 28-02-2008 fnu ds rhu cts dh gSA eS vius ?kj ij pkjikbZ ij cSBh Fkh rHkh esjs xkao ds lqjs'k dqekj esjs ?kj es ?kql vk;k vkSj mlus cnfu;rh ls esjh Nkrh ij gkFk Mkyk Fkk vkSj gkFk idMdj dgus yxk fd eq>ls I;kj djksA eS fpYykbZ rks esjh eka jlksbZ ls nkSM+dj vk;h mudks ns[kdj ;g esjk gkFk NksMdj ckgj xsV ls Hkkxus yxk esjh eka us ihNk fd;k rks og idM ugh ik;h vkSj xUnh xUnh xkfy;ka nsrk gqvk vius ?kj dh rjQ Hkkx x;k vkSj nksckjk ns[k ysus dh /kedh nsdj Hkkx x;k esjs firk th ckjkr esa x;s gq, Fks og nks fnu ckn ykSVdj vk;s rks ;g ckr eSus firk dks crk;h D;ksafd ;g 'keZ o bTtr okyh ckr Fkh og fnukad 3-3-2008 dks firkth dks crk;h Fkh firk us Fkkus ij fjiksVZ fy[kok;h Fkh ?kVuk ds le; njksxk th us esjk c;ku fy;k Fkk gkftj vnkyr eqfYte lqjs'k dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;gh vfHk;qDr gS ftlesa esjs lkFk ?kVuk dh FkhA ih0MCyw0&3 Jherh vuqie dqekjh us vius 'kliFk c;ku dh eq[; ijh{kk esa dFku fd;k gS fd ?kVuk fnukad 28-02-2008 fnu ds rhu cts dh gS eS vius ?kj ij jlksbZ esa dke dj jgh Fkh esjh yMdh fiz;adk ckgj okys dejs esa pkjikbZ ij cSBh Fkh vpkud viuh csVh fiz;adk ds fpYykus dh vkokt lquh fQj eS Hkkx dj dejs es igqaph rks ns[kk fd esjs xkao dk lqjs'k dqekj fiz;adk dk gkFk idMdj cufu;rh ls mlds lkFk NsMNkM dj gkFkk eq>s ns[kdj og bdne dejs ls Hkkxk vkSj eSus ihNk fd;k rks xanh xanh xkfy;ka nsrk gqvk fQj ns[kus dh dgdj vius ?kj dh rjQ Hkkx x;kA eSa fpYykbZ rks 'keZ dh ckr Fkh blfy, pqi jgh esjs ifr tc ckjkr ls ykSV vk;s rc mudks iwjh ckr crk;h Fkh ?kVuk ds laca/k es njksxk th us c;ku fy;k Fkk gkftj vnkyr eqfYte lqjs'k dqekj dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;g ogh gS ftlesa ;g ?kVuk dh FkhA ih0MCyw0&4 ,l0vkbZ0 d`".k eqjkjh us vius c;ku dh eq[; ijh{kk esa dFku fd;k gS fd eS Fkkuk fejgph ij fnukad 3-3-2008 dks crkj ,l0vkbZ0 ds in ij rSukr Fkk oknh fouksn dqekj dh rgjhj ij v0la0 39@08 /kkjk 354] 452] 504 Hkk0na0la0 cuke lqjs'k iathd`r gqvk Fkk ftldh foospuk eq>s feyh FkhA ipkZ ua0 1 fnukad 3-3-2008 dks esjs }kjk fdrk fd;k x;k ftlesa udy fpd rgjhj fgUnh oknh udy dk;eh c;ku oknh c;ku xokg vuqie dqekjh] fujh{k.k ?kVuk LFkylekbZ lk{; vafdr fd;s x;s gS ipkZ uEcj f}rh; fnukad 13-3-2008 dks esjs }kjk fdrk fd;k gS c;ku dqekjh fiz;adk dk vafdr fd;k x;k rFkk udy jksodkj gkftjh dks vafdr fd;k gSA ipkZ uaEcj r`rh; fnukad 26-03-2008 dks esjs }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k ftlesa c;ku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ys[kd c;ku vfHk;qDr vafdr fd;k x;k rFkk vfHk;qDr ds fo:} lEiw.kZ lk{; ikrs gq, vkjksi i= U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k vkjksi i= la[;k 3 v o uD'kk utjh dkxt la[;k 6 v esjs ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gS ftu ij izn'kZ d&2 ,oa izn'kZ d&3 Mkys x;sA mDr eqdnes dh ewy fpd ,oa udy jiV dkfu- DydZ ujksRre izlkn ds ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gS udy jiV ewy fpd dh dkcZu izfr yxkdj rS;kj dh x;h gS dkfu0 DydZ ujksRre nkl esjs lkFk rSukr jgs gS fy[krs i<rs ns[kk gS ys[k o gLrk{kj igpkurk gwaA ewy fpd dkxt la[;k 4 v gS rFkk dkxt la[;k 7 v dkfu- ujksRre izlkn ds ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gS ftl ij izn'kZ dze'k% izn'kZ d&4 o izn'kZ d&5 Mkys x;sA 9. Learned trial Court after considering and perusing the materials brought on record held that:- ^^i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; ds fo'ys"k.k ds mijkar eS bl fUk"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd vfHk;kstu lk{kh ih0MCyw0&1 fouksn dqekj ih0MCyw0&2 dqejh fiz;adk ,oa ih0MCyw0&3 Jherh vuqiek us vius l'kiFk c;kuksa esa ?kVuk dk fnukad le; o LFkku dks iw.kZ :i ls lkfcr fd;k gSA vr% vfHk;qDr ds fo:} /kkjk 354] 452] 504] Hkk0na0la0 dk vkjksi izFke n`"V;k lsang ls ijs lkfcr gksrk gSA vr% vfHk;qDr lqjs'k dqekj dks mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr nks"kh ik;k tkrk gSA^^ 10. The learned trial Court heard the parties on the issue of sentence and finally held vide order dated 22.12.2012 that:- ^^vfHk;qDr dks n.M ds iz'u ij lquk x;kA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls dgk x;k fd mldk ;g izFke vijk/k gSA vfHk;qDr ds nks cPps gSA rFkk og xjhc vkneh gSA vr% mls de ls de n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkosA vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh }kjk dgk x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr ds }kjk ihfMrk ds lkFk mldh yTtk djus dk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k x;k gS rFkk xkyh xykSt dh x;h ,sls es lekt dh izfr"Bk dks ns[krs gq, vfHk;qDr dks dMh ls dMh ltk nh tkosA ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; }kjk vius ,d fu.kZ; n`"Vkar enu xksiky ddDM cuke uoy nqcs 1992 ,0vkbZ0vkj0 ,l0lh0MCyw0 1480 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd U;k;k/kh'kksa dk ;g drZO; gS fd eqdnes ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, fof/k dh ryokj dk iz;ksx vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, brus cy ls fd;k tkuk pkfg, ftruk vko';d gksA vfHk;qDr ds }kjk ihfMrk ds lkFk fnu esa ?kj esa ?kqldj mldh yTtk Hkax dh x;h gS rFkk xanh xanh xkfy;k nh x;h gSA vr% vfHk;qDr ds lkFk fdlh izdkj dh ujeh cjruk fof/k dh ea'kk ds fo:} gksxkA mijksDr leLr rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 452 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr 2 o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl /kkjk 354 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr nks o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl] ,oa /kkjk 504 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr 1 o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ls nafMr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA vfHk;qDr lqjs'k dqekj dks /kkjk 452] 354] 504 Hkk0na0la0 ds vkjksi ds vUrxZr nks"kh ikrs gq, mls /kkjk 452 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr nks o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa /kkjk 354 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr nks o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa /kkjk 504 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr ,d o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA lHkh ltk,a ,d lkFk pysxhA vfHk;qDr dks fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr fu%'kqYd fu;ekuqlkj iznku dh tkosA vfHk;qDr dk ltk;koh okj.V cukdj rRdky ftyk dkjkxkj ,Vk Hkstk tk;sA^^ (Emphasis supplied) 11. The revisionist filed an appeal against his conviction and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Etah, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal by order dated 16.9.2013. The revisionist filed an appeal against his conviction and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Etah, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal by order dated 16.9.2013. The relevant part of the order is reproduced here in below:- ^^bl U;k;ky; ds fopkj esa vfHk;qDr dks fo}ku voj U;k;ky; us vf/kdre ltk ugha nh gS rFkk fo}ku voj U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fd vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 452 Hkk0na0la0 ds varxZr nks o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl] /kkjk 354 Hkk0na0la0 ds varxZr nks o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa /kkjk 504 Hkk0 na0 la0 ds varxZr ,d o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ls nf.Mr fd;k tkuk izR;sd voLFkk esa U;k;ksfpr gSA vihykFkhZ@ vfHk;qDr ds fo:} /kkjk 354] 452] 504 Hkk0 na0 la0 dk vkjksi i=koyh ij ;qfDr ;qDr lansg ls ijs c[kwch lkfcr gksrk gSA fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;@vkns'k fnukafdr 22-12-2012 esa ;g U;k;ky; dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ,oa =qfV ugha ikrk gSA vihy fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vfHk;qDr lqjs'k dqekj dks /kkjk 354] 452] 504 Hkk0 na0 la0 esa nks"kh ik;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDr tekur ij gSA vfHk;qDr ds O;fDrxr ca/k i= o izfrHkwi= fujLr fd;s tkrs gSa rFkk izfrHkqvksa dks muds nkf;Ro ls mUeksfpr fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDr lqjs'k dqekj dks rRdky vfHkj{kk esa fy;k tkosA^^ 12. The present revision is against the order dated 16.9.2013 as well as against order dated 22.12.2012. 13. I have heard learned AGA for the State on the issue of question of sentence as the notice is limited on the 'question of sentence only' and perused the record. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Babulal reported in, (2013) 12 SCC 308 in para 19 has held that:- 19. "In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The most relevant determinitative factor of sentencing is proportionality between crime and punishment keeping in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the criminal justice system to take a lenient view showing misplaced sympathy to the accused on any consideration whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings. The most relevant determinitative factor of sentencing is proportionality between crime and punishment keeping in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the criminal justice system to take a lenient view showing misplaced sympathy to the accused on any consideration whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society being abhorrent to the basic principles balance while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence encourages a criminal and as a result of the same society suffers." 15. In the present matter, the revisionist has been convicted u/s 354 IPC (wherein the maximum punishment is up to five years), Section 452 IPC (wherein the maximum sentence is up to seven years) and Section 504 (wherein the maximum sentence is up to two years). 16. The allegations levelled against the revisionist are serious in nature such as forcing criminal force to woman to out rayed her modesty, house trespass and provoking breach of peace. 17. The learned court below has already taken a lenient view in awarding the quantum of sentence to the revisionist and he has not been awarded maximum sentence provided for the offence involved in the present matter. 18. I have considered the material brought on record as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of principle of sentencing and I am of the considered opinion that the revisionist is not entitled for any sympathy. The facts and circumstances of the present case does not warrant this Court to take any lenient view on the issue of quantum of sentence. Therefore, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.