Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 590 (ALL)

Mahipal v. State of U. P.

2020-02-24

AJIT SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the appellants has very fairly stated that appellant No. 2, Amar Singh has already served the sentence and in view of the above, the appeal against the appellant No. 2, Amar Singh has become infructuous. 2. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appeal against appellant No. 2, Amar Singh is dismissed as infructuous. 3. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.3.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Budaun in S.T. No. 472 of 2014 (State v. Munendra and others), under sections 307 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bisauli, District Budaun, whereby learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further additional imprisonment for three months, one year rigorous imprisonment under section 504 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further additional imprisonment for one month. 4. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.6.2014 the complainant along with his other family members had returned back from the 'Lagun ceremony' of his daughter Vimlesh and his other daughter Kanti had come from her in-laws house to attend the marriage. On 15.6.2014 all the family members were present at home in preparation for the procession. Resident of same village Munendra son of Amar Singh who was armed with firearm started abusing them. Alongwith Munendra, the residents of same village namely, Mahipal and Amar Singh, son of Natthu, who were having firearms in their hands also came before us and started abusing. When they objected for abusing then at about 6:00 p.m. Munendra started firing with the intention to kill us, which was hit Kanti, as a result of which she collapsed on the 'kharanja'. The incident was witnessed by the residents of the village namely, Gaurav Kumar, Arvind, son of Chatrapal, Dinesh, son of Munshi and several others. All the accused persons after firing ran away towards fields. 5. The incident was witnessed by the residents of the village namely, Gaurav Kumar, Arvind, son of Chatrapal, Dinesh, son of Munshi and several others. All the accused persons after firing ran away towards fields. 5. At the very outset, Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, stated that he does not propose to challenge the impugned judgment and order on its merits, He, however, prayed for modification of the order of the sentence for the period already undergone by the appellant. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that only single shot was fired by the accused Munendra and no overt act of any kind has been attributed to appellant No. 1, Mahipal. He next submitted that at the time of include the accused was aged about 25 years and at present the accused is more than 31 years of age. He has next submitted that it was the first offence of the accused and after conviction the accused had not indulged in any other criminal activity. He further submitted that on the question of legality of sentence he is not pressing this appeal and only pressing on the quantum of sentence and he has prayed for taking lenient view considering the family status, Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment of five years and that he has already undergone two years before conviction and about two years after conviction, meaning thereby that he has undergone about four years of the awarded sentence. 7. While dealing with the quantum of sentence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration AIR 1973 SC 1457 , held as under: "Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations, which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act, which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act, which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the annoy and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same." 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the substantive period already undergone by the appellant in this case and the fact that the appellant is a young person and he is the only bread earner in the family and that he might have realized the mistake committed by him and might remorseful of his conduct to the society to which he belongs, I am of the considered opinion that he should be given a chance to reform himself and his better contribution to the society to which he belongs to. 9. Considering the fact that the accused is in jail since 13.3.2018. 9. Considering the fact that the accused is in jail since 13.3.2018. He was awarded maximum sentence of five years; that he has served two years before conviction and about two years after conviction; that he has already served about four years and it would be appropriate and proper that the accused be sentenced with the period already undergone and the amount of fine be enhanced. 10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail during trial and after conviction an amount of fine of Rs. 4,000/- be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. 11. Accused-appellant is directed to deposit the fine of Rs. 10,000/- before learned lower Court at the time of applying for release order, out of which Rs. 9,000/- shall be paid to the injured, if he/she is alive and in case he/she is dead, then it would be paid to his/her legal heirs. 12. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. 13. Copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Lower Court forthwith for compliance.