JUDGMENT & ORDER : RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by convict-appellant Sanjay Kumar, through District Legal Services Authority by Senior Superintendent of Jail, Bijnor, under Section 383 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against judgment of conviction and sentence therein, by Court No.7 of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor on 14.10.2011 in Sessions Trial No.759 of 2010 under Section 302 of IPC in Case Crime NO.171 of 2010 of P.S.Nagina Dehat of District-Bijnor, wherein appellant Sanjay Kumar has been convicted for offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of six months was to be faced. 2. From the very perusal of record of Trial Court, it is apparent that a Case Crime No.171 of 2010 under Section 302 IPC was got registered at P. S.Nagina Dehat of District-Bijnor on 10.07.2010 at 7.00 AM on the basis of a written report (Exhibit Ka 1) of informant, PW-1, Smt. Rati Devi w/o Ram Kumar r/o Village-Akbarpur, P.S.Nagina Dehat, District-Bijnor, against her own son Sanjay Kumar with allegation that complainant's husband Ram Kumar had been sleeping in room while watching TV in the night intervening 9/10.07.2010, when at about 1.00 AM, Sanjay Kumar suddenly assaulted him by some sharp edged weapon. She was at sleep in the courtyard and on hearing rescue call, she rushed and found her husband gasping over bed in pool of blood. Sanjay Kumar pushing her aside opened the door and fled away from spot. The informant made alarm. Her daughter-in-law Poonam, who was sleeping in the next room and many others rushed to the spot. Till then Ram Kumar was dead. FIR further recites that the accused-appellant Sanjay has murdered husband of informant. 3. After lodging of first information report, the investigation proceeded. Inquest proceedings were got conducted the same day between 8.00 AM to 9.00 AM in which opinion of witnesses was that death had occurred owing to ante mortem injuries found on the person of deceased, allegedly caused by Sanjay Kumar. Relevant police papers were got prepared on the spot and dead body after sealing intact was sent for Autopsy Examination. Inquest proceedings were got conducted the same day between 8.00 AM to 9.00 AM in which opinion of witnesses was that death had occurred owing to ante mortem injuries found on the person of deceased, allegedly caused by Sanjay Kumar. Relevant police papers were got prepared on the spot and dead body after sealing intact was sent for Autopsy Examination. Post Mortem examination over dead body was conducted whereupon ten (10) ante mortem injuries were found and according to doctor death was caused owing to those ante mortem injuries. 4. Accused Sanjay Kumar was apprehended by Investigating Officer on 15.08.2010. His statement was recorded in Case Diary in which he confessed regarding hiding of sword, the weapon of offence, saying that on his pointing, the same can be recovered. An entry to this effect was made in G.D. at Entry No.24 at 16.50 hours at Police Station concerned. At the instance of accused, he was taken by police to Village-Akabarpur Aawala in government jeep and from that village witnesses Dharamveer s/o Suresh Singh and Sitaram s/o Kishan Singh were taken. After moving along the railway line about 1 km, accused got the jeep stopped at Railway Station Murshidpur, the team reached near Shiv Temple and from there at about 1/2 km to a sugarcane field. The sword used as weapon of offence in occurrence, was got recovered upon pointing out of accused Sanjay Kumar. This was within a black plastic cover. This recovery was made at about 17.50 PM. Recovered sword was kept under seal, recovery memo, Exhibit Ka 2 was prepared by Sub Inspector, Raj Singh, on dictation of Investigating Officer and was got signed by aforesaid witnesses as well as police personnel. A site plan of place of recovery was instantly prepared same day i.e. 15.08.2010 and articles were brought to Police Station. 5. After investigation, charge sheet i.e. Exhibit ka 15 against accused-appellant Sanjay Kumar was filed under Section 302 of IPC, whereupon Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor took cognizance on 27.09.2010. The offence being punishable under Section 302 of IPC, was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, hence, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions which was ultimately transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.7. The offence being punishable under Section 302 of IPC, was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, hence, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions which was ultimately transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.7. Learned Trial Judge framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against accused-appellant which reads as under : ^^;g fd fnukad 9@10-07-2010 djhc 1-00 cts LFkku fLFkr xzke vdcj vkaoyk varxZr Fkkuk uxhuk nsgkr ftyk fctukSj dh lhek esa vkius okfnuh jfr nsoh ds ifr jke dqekj ij dejs aes lksrs gq, /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ryokj ls vpkud geykdj mldh gR;k dj nhA bl izdkj vkius ,slk vijk/k fd;k gS tks Hkk-n-a+l+ dh /kkjk 302 ds rgr naMuh; gS tks bl U;k;ky; dh izlaKku esa gSA^^ "That you on 9/10.07.2010 at about 1.00 AM in village-Akbarpur Aonla within Police Station-Nageena Dehat, District-Bijnor committed murder of Ram Kumar, informant's husband by suddenly assailing him by sharp edged weapon, sword, while he was sleeping in the room. Thus, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within cognizance of this Court." (English Translation by Court) 6. Charge was read over and explained to accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. To substantiate the offence under Section 302 IPC, prosecution examined PW-1, complainant Smt. Rati Devi, PW-2 Rama and PW-3 Dharamvir Singh, who are witnesses of fact. PW-4, Santosh Kumar Tyagi is Investigating Officer, PW-5 Dr. Virendra Pal Singh is Senior Consultant, who conducted Autopsy examination on dead body of deceased and PW-5, HCP 62, Ajay Kumar is a formal witness. 8. Pw-1 Smt. Rati Devi in her examination-in-chief, has said that she was blessed with six sons and one daughter. Five sons were at job at Delhi. Her daughter was married and she too resided at Delhi. Only Sanjay Kumar was residing with her in the village and was engaged in farming. He was pressurizing her husband for alienating his entire land in his name alone, since his other brothers were at job in Delhi, but he did not accede to it and said that he would divide the land in equal share amongst all his sons and would not alienate in his name alone. Sanjay Kumar used to quarrel very often on this point. She too was frequently beaten by him. Sanjay Kumar used to quarrel very often on this point. She too was frequently beaten by him. Prior to this occurrence, he had extended threat by showing knife threatening that in case of non transfer of land in his name, he will kill her. It was further deposed by PW-1 that in the intervening night of 9/10.07.2010, Sanjay was in his room and her husband was watching T.V. in his room. She was lying in courtyard. There was electric light in the premises. At about 1.00 AM in the night she heard shrieks from the room of her husband. She rushed and saw Sanjay assaulting her husband by sword saying that as land was not transferred in his name, he would kill him. He pushed her aside and after opening the door, ran away. Upon hue and cry, Poonam w/o Sanjay, who was sleeping in the adjacent room, and many others of locality, rushed to the spot. Sanjay managed to escape from spot by unlocking the main door. Her husband died on the cot itself. Through telephonic call, she informed her relatives and sons residing in Delhi. When her sons came in the early morning from Delhi, she dictated and got the written report scribed by her son Sudhir, who read over report to her and she put her thumb impression on it. Thereafter she along with her son went at Police Station, and got the report lodged. The report (Exhibit Ka 1) lodged at the Police Station is on record and has been proved by this witness. Fact of registration of case crime number has been corroborated by testimony of PW-6, HCP 62 Ajay Kumar, who in his examination on oath has said that while posted as Head Moharir at Police Station-Nagina Dehat on 10.07.2010, he had registered Case Crime No.171 of 2010, on the report of informant Smt. Rati Devi. PW-6 has proved copy of Chik report (Exhibit ka 1) as well as copy of G. D. entry (Exhibit ka 13) prepared by him. 9. PW-6 has proved copy of Chik report (Exhibit ka 1) as well as copy of G. D. entry (Exhibit ka 13) prepared by him. 9. Pw-2 Rama who is next door neighbour of convict-appellant has corroborated the testimony of PW-1, that deceased has frequently apprised this witness that his son used to extend threats in case of non transfer of property in his name and in the intervening night of 9/10.07.2010 this witness was asleep at his home when he heard the alarm from the house of Ram Kumar situated towards east side of his house. He was awaken and rushed with his torch to the house of Ram Kumar and found Sanjay Kumar running from his house, in perplexed state and his mother was weeping inside the home. She was crying that he (Sanjay) had assaulted by sword but owing to night and accused being armed with sword, he could not be apprehended by witnesses. He has simply stated that when he entered inside the room, he found dead body of Ram Kumar lying under pool of blood. 10. Pw-3 Dharamvir is witness of recovery of sword upon pointing of Sanjay Kumar, 11. Pw-4 S. I. Santosh Kumar Tyagi is the Investigating Officer of this case. Who has said on oath that while posted at P.S. Nagina Dehat, he had undertaken investigation of Case Crime No.171 of 2010 on 10.07.2010, registered under Section 302 of IPC upon complaint of Smt. Rati Devi w/o Ram Kumar at the police station in his presence and on same day he copied the Chik FIR and recorded statement of Constable Ajay Kumar, complainant Smt. Rati Devi. The spot map Exhibit Ka 3 was got prepared in the handwriting and signature of this witness, upon pointing of complainant Smt. Rati Devi and the same has been proved. Inquest proceedings and relevant papers were prepared on spot under handwriting and signature of this witness. He has proved Inquest Report, Exhibit Ka 4, letter to R. I., Challan Dead body, Photo dead body, letter to CMO, Specimen Seal, exhibited as Exhibits ka 9 to ka 15. Dead body was sealed on the spot and was delivered to constable Jagmohan Singh and Mehak Singh for Autopsy Examination. The blood stained soil and plain soil were taken from the spot and were sealed in cloth after preparation of Specimen Seal and memo of recovery. Dead body was sealed on the spot and was delivered to constable Jagmohan Singh and Mehak Singh for Autopsy Examination. The blood stained soil and plain soil were taken from the spot and were sealed in cloth after preparation of Specimen Seal and memo of recovery. Recovery memo has been proved as Exhibit ka 10. Accused Sanjay was arrested on 15.08.2010. His statement was recorded in C.D. He confessed his guilt by making disclosure of fact that he had hidden sword, by which he had murdered his father, which may be got recovered on his pointing. After making the entry in G. D. No.24 at 16.50 hours, accused was taken to village-Akbarpur Aanwala, Murshadpur Railway Station from where upon his pointing the sword was recovered from a field. It was within a plastic cover. The recovery memo, Exhibit Ka 2 was prepared. Site map was got prepared. The same have been proved to be Material Exhibit 1 and Material Exhibit 2. The clothes of deceased have been proved to be Material Exhibit 3, Material Exhibit 4 and Material Exhibit 5. The plain soil taken from spot has been proved to be Material Exhibit 7 and blood stained soil has been proved to be Material Exhibit 6 and after the entire investigation, the filing of charge sheet was resulted and this was in handwriting and signature of this witness, which is on record, proved and exhibited as Exhibit Ka 15. 12. Pw-5 is Medical Officer, Dr. Virendra Pal Singh, Senior Consultant, who has proved Autopsy Examination of dead body of deceased Ram Kumar aged about 60 years, s/o Ganga Ram r/o village Akbarpur Aanwala, P.S.Nagina Dehat, District-Bijnor, which was brought in sealed and intact position by Constable Mehak Singh and Jagmohan Singh on 10.07.2010 which was identified by those constables and were found to be intact bearing with specimen seal at about 2.45 PM of the date. On the external examination the body was found to be of average built, rigour mortis present in upper and lower limbs except thumb. Eyes and mouth were closed, the ante mortem injuries were as under :- (i) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm on left eyebrow. On the external examination the body was found to be of average built, rigour mortis present in upper and lower limbs except thumb. Eyes and mouth were closed, the ante mortem injuries were as under :- (i) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm on left eyebrow. (ii) Incised wound 10 cm x 1cm in mid part lower jaw, 2 cm below chin, underneath injury muscle vessels found cut (iii) Incised wound 12 cm x 0.5 cm on mid and right side neck, underneath injury trachea found cut. (iv) Multiple incised wounds on right side neck within muscle deep, 11 cm x 2 cm are three in number (v) Linear abrasion 5 cm on left shoulder part (vi) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm on back of left forearm, medial aspect, 2 cm above wrist (vii) Multiple incised wounds in area 16 cm x 11 cm on right hand back, on ring, index and middle finger and dorsum of right hand, four in number. (viii) Multiple linear abrasion 8 cm x 6 cm in area of 8 cm x 6 cm on left shoulder joint (ix) Incised wound 11 cm x 1 cm on back of chest left side, 4 cm below shoulder joint (x) Multiple incised wounds on left and back side neck, lower point in area 8 cm x 5 cm size varying 3 cm x 2 cm to 5 cm x 0.5 cm, three in number. 13. On internal examination of dead body, trachea was found cut, both chambers of heart were empty, teeth were 8/11, semi digested food present in stomach and urinary bladder was empty. Death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage because of those ante mortem injuries and it was about half day earlier. This might occur by sword on 09.07.2010 at about 1.00 AM. Autopsy Report, Exhibit Ka 11 prepared by PW-5 has been proved by him. 14. Pw-6 is the constable clerk whose testimony has previously been discussed. 15. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. who stated that he has been falsely implicated. He has also denied recovery of sword on his pointing out. No evidence in defence was adduced by accused-appellant. 16. The Trial Judge heard learned counsel for both sides and recorded judgment of conviction against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as above. 17. P. who stated that he has been falsely implicated. He has also denied recovery of sword on his pointing out. No evidence in defence was adduced by accused-appellant. 16. The Trial Judge heard learned counsel for both sides and recorded judgment of conviction against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as above. 17. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel appearing for appellant argued that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; none of the witnesses examined in the matter as eye account witness, has witnessed the incident; motive assigned against convict-appellant has also not been proved; date, time and place of occurrence have not been established; medical evidence does not support the prosecution case; site plan prepared on spot is not in corroboration with prosecution case. In brief, the contention of appellant is that the Trial Judge failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it. The witnesses of prosecution were interested witnesses. The motive for commission of murder was neither placed nor was plausible and once convict-appellant was intending to have transferred the entire land of his deceased father Ram Kumar in his name then, after his death the above possibility ended. Hence, this motive, assigned by prosecution, was not acceptable. The murder has been said to be at 1.00 AM in the intervening night, but the report was lodged at 7.00 AM and this delay was said to be because of the return of informant's son Sudhir Kumar from Delhi to his home after receiving telephonic information of occurrence. If it is accepted, it was not possible since it took only six hours for journey of about 250 km from Delhi to place of occurrence and getting report scribed and lodged at Police Station. Hence, it is apparent that it was ante timed report, but the Trial Judge failed to appreciate it. FIR was scribed after deliberations and planning in which the assault by sharp edged weapon has been written but no weapon like sword has been mentioned, which itself shows that informant Smt. Rati Devi was not an eye-witness of occurrence, otherwise sword would have been written in the report. Convict-appellant was residing at his village along with his parents, deceased Ram Kumar (father) and complainant Smt. Rati Devi (mother) and his family, rest of his five brothers were at job at Delhi. Convict-appellant was residing at his village along with his parents, deceased Ram Kumar (father) and complainant Smt. Rati Devi (mother) and his family, rest of his five brothers were at job at Delhi. They were of no likelihood to come to the village for their settlement. They were compelling deceased Ram Kumar for selling land of their share and making payment of consideration to them, which was not conceded by deceased Ram Kumar and as a result he was intending to execute a Will in favour of convict-appellant for whole of his land and probably owing to this, other brothers of convict-appellant either committed or managed to commit murder of Ram Kumar. That is why no other witnesses have deposed against convict-appellant. The witnesses who deposed against convict-appellant, were in conspiracy to get the land purchased in their names and in case convict-appellant being in jail, it became very easy for them. Convict-appellant and her mother Smt. Rati Devi were under perplexed state of mind after murder of Ram Kumar and in such situation, false report was got registered by informant. The entire proceedings of recovery is concocted one and have not been supported by witnesses, but the Court failed to appreciate it. 18. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae for convict-appellant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned Additional Government Advocate for State. We have gone through record and impugned judgment. 19. From perusal of statement of PW-1, in cross-examination we find no contradiction, embellishment or exaggeration nor there is any dispute or explanation regarding this testimony put under question to accused Sanjay Kumar under his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., hence, this witness has fully proved the documentary evidence of Chik FIR as Exhibit Ka 12 and G.D. Entry as Exhibit ka 13. 20. From very perusal of Exhibit ka 12, Chik FIR, G. D. Entry Exhibit ka 13 and testimony of PW-1, it is fully established that it was a very promptly lodged FIR of case crime number, by Smt. Rati Devi, against her own son Sanjay Kumar, for murder of her husband Ram Kumar, at 1.00 AM in intervening night of 9/10.07.2010 at village-Akbarpur Aawala, situated at about 5 km towards west of P.S.Nagina Dehat, of which report was got lodged at 7.00 AM, on same day i.e. 10.07.2010. In her cross-examination she has categorically said the motive for this offence that convict-appellant was the only son out of six who was residing with his parents at village and was engaged in farming on his ancestral land. His other brothers were at job at Delhi and he was compelling his father to alienate his entire landed property in the name of him, which was not conceded by his father, resulting into frequent quarrel and enmity. Previously, threat was extended by him to his mother. In the trial, based on direct evidence, motive is of no avail, though plays a vital role in a trial based on circumstantial evidence, as propounded in 2007 (2) JIC 831 SC as well as by this Court (Lucknow Bench) in 2010 (71) ACC 764. But in this case, motive is alleged and there is no material contradiction in the testimony of this witness. 21. The other fact argued lightly was about the place of occurrence, that the death was said to be inside the room where deceased was said to be sleeping after watching T.V., whereas dead body was found on the cot lying in Verandah in front of above room. But this has been said by this witness that her husband was in the room where T.V. was on and he was watching T.V. This witness was lying at courtyard. The vernadah where the dead body was found on the bed was in front of the above room and the blood stained earth was taken from the said spot. In villages the internal door are very often open and room and verandah in front thereof is used as living room purpose. Beds lie in room as well as verandah which is also said to be room and when assault was made by his son it was very probable that protest had been made and after moving 10-20 steps he would have reached on the cot at verandah, just in front of room, as such there is no material contradiction. This has cogently and unimpeachably been proved by this witness that accused was inside the house at the time of occurrence and this witness has witnessed him assaulting deceased by sharp edged weapon, resulting serious injuries to whom he succumbed and then he ran after opening the main door. There is no contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment over this testimony of this witness. There is no contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment over this testimony of this witness. The minor contradictions, which have been highly argued by learned counsel for defence, were of the nature of hair splitting. Whereas while appreciating the evidence in criminal sessions trial, totality of evidence is to be appreciated as a whole and it is to ascertain as to whether witnesses are fully reliable or totally untrustworthy. 22. In case of wholly reliable witnesses, solitary witness is sufficient to prove the prosecution case by cogent, clear and unimpeachable evidence and in case of partly reliable witness, it may require corroboration. Its untrustworthy portion, if possible, is to be separated from the trustworthy portion for its corroboration by other evidences. This minor contradiction makes the witness natural witness otherwise it will be a parrot like crammed witness as held in Vikash Rana Vs State of Haryana, 2000 SCC(Cri) 222 where Court has propounded that minor embellishment or trivial discrepancy is usual in statement of a witness. Inspite of hair splitting over any point, the totality of situation ought to have been taken. Court in Lila Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) SCC(Cri) 222 has propounded that when cross-examination is lengthy, minor discrepancies is guarantee of truth. Thus PW-1 is the eye-witness and wholly reliable witness without any embellishment, contradiction or exaggeration. 23. In cross-examination PW-2, Rama has said that within two minutes he reached at the house of deceased, after hearing hue and cry and he found 2-4 present at the spot. He had seen Sanjay running from his house in the close proximity of aforesaid time from the distance of 2-3 meter from him. His statement was taken by the Investigating Officer. There is no material contradiction in his testimony nor any notable exaggeration or embellishment were found, hence, he is a fully reliable witness. His testimony is in corroboration of PW-1. 24. Pw-3 has said that he is not aware as to whether any sword was got recovered on the pointing of Sanjay Kumar by which he had murdered his father. He is not aware as to whether police had come in the village on 15.08.2010, but in previous line he had said that he is aware of Smt. Rati Devi. Her husband Ram Kumar was murdered. Report of this murder was got registered by Smt. Rati Devi against her son Sanjay Kumar. He is not aware as to whether police had come in the village on 15.08.2010, but in previous line he had said that he is aware of Smt. Rati Devi. Her husband Ram Kumar was murdered. Report of this murder was got registered by Smt. Rati Devi against her son Sanjay Kumar. Sanjay Kumar is in jail with regard to this offence of murder. Police had come on 15.08.2010. Upon request of prosecution, this witness has been declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution, in which he has said that police had come with regard to recovery of sword, but this witness was not accompanying police because he was not in village on above date. But when recovery memo was read over and shown to this witness, he has admitted his signature over it. He is an educated witness i.e. a teacher. Then by explaining this statement he further said at para 3 that he had put his signature over recovery memo at police station, which was a plain paper but he had nowhere complained about getting his signature on a plain paper to any police officer or any competent. For the first time during this trial, he made such a statement. Hence, the signature on Exhibit ka 2 is taken to be proved by this witness, which leads to inference that Exhibit ka 2 was prepared after recovery of sword upon pointing of accused-appellant. In cross-examination there is no material contradiction. 25. In cross-examination no question has been put by learned counsel for defence to PW-5 Dr. Virendra Pal Singh, Medical Officer was not posted on above date, time and place on above post or he had not conducted the Autopsy Examination of dead body of deceased Ram Kumar or it was not brought under sealed intact position or it was not having those ante mortem injuries or that Autopsy Examination Report was not prepared under handwriting and signature of this witness. Rather the questions asked were about presence of rigor mortis and possibility of fixing of timing of death which is of no material importance and the testimony of this witness is corroborated by documentary evidence Exhibit ka 11, which proved death of deceased because of ante mortem injuries. 26. The appellant-convict in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. Rather the questions asked were about presence of rigor mortis and possibility of fixing of timing of death which is of no material importance and the testimony of this witness is corroborated by documentary evidence Exhibit ka 11, which proved death of deceased because of ante mortem injuries. 26. The appellant-convict in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. has not disputed his presence at the spot on the date, time and place and murder of deceased. Rather he has denied his offence. But he has taken no steps for lodging report for murder of his own father or taking any recourse. Testimony of PW-2 Rama has been disputed because of him being friend of deceased. But what he has said, has not been disputed nor any evidence in defence has been given by accused. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly and appropriately appreciated the facts and law placed before it. The argument regarding failure of the Trial Judge for appreciating the facts and law placed before it, is not sustainable. The charge has been fully proved by prosecution beyond doubt by trustworthy eye-witness account of PW-1 who is mother of convict-appellant. This poor lady whose husband was murdered by her own son was to choose either justice to her deceased husband or favour her own son, but she had chose the path of justice leaving behind her apathy towards her own son. She has deposed with cogent and unimpeachable testimony that it was only and only convict-appellant who had murdered his father on that fateful night. This has further been corroborated by independent witness PW-2 as well as family witness. 27. So far as sentence regarding appellant Sanjay Kumar is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. 28. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. Vide: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 . 29. Hence, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment imposed upon accused-appellant Sanjay Kumar by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant and no question arises to interfere in the matter on the point of punishment imposed upon him. 30. To conclude, this appeal merits its dismissal. It is dismissed accordingly. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2011 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in S.T. No.759 of 2010, is hereby affirmed. 31. Certified copy along with record be sent to Court concerned for follow up action. Copy of this judgment be also supplied to accused-appellants through concerned Superintendent of Jail. 32. Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs.10,000/-. 31. Certified copy along with record be sent to Court concerned for follow up action. Copy of this judgment be also supplied to accused-appellants through concerned Superintendent of Jail. 32. Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs.10,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad to Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Amicus Curiae, without any delay and, in any case, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.