JUDGMENT : MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 2. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Arvind against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 87 of 2015 (State vs. Arvind and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 532 of 2014, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Gangsters Act”), Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 3(1) Gangsters Act for ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.15,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to serve five months additional imprisonment. 3. Aggrieved thus, by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2019, the accused appellant Arvind preferred this appeal. It may be added that there were 05 accused and they were charge sheeted in trial court. The present appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Arvind. Thus, present appeal is heard in respect of appellant Arvind only. 4. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the prosecution story is that on the basis of information of informant S.H.O. Dhananjay Mishra and approved gang chart, on 06.11.2014 in respect of crimes alleged to have been committed by the appellant alongwith co-accused, the case (F.I.R.) was registered against accused Arvind, Pramod, Monu alias Rakesh, Parveen and Sainki alias Harshvardhan as Crime No. 532 of 2014, under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused appellants have a organized gang, on the basis of which who for personal gain of gang extracts illegal money by committing offences like gang rape, murder, kidnapping and deletion of evidence of offence and by this reason general public is engulfed in their terror. 5. On the basis of gang chart, Chick F.I.R. was registered and entries were entered into Kaimi G.D and Carbon copy of which was also prepared in the same process. Investigation was entrusted to S.H.O. Ajay Pal Gautam. 6. 5. On the basis of gang chart, Chick F.I.R. was registered and entries were entered into Kaimi G.D and Carbon copy of which was also prepared in the same process. Investigation was entrusted to S.H.O. Ajay Pal Gautam. 6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan after inspecting the place of occurrence and after due investigation, he also procured sanction for prosecution from competent authority and after completing due investigation, submitted against the aforementioned accused/appellant under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act. 7. The trial court framed charges under Section 3(1) Gangsters Act, 1986. The accused/appellant abjured the charges, pleaded “not guilty” and claimed “to be tried.” 8. To bring home the charges, prosecution adduced following ocular evidence examining following witnesses: S. No. Name of the witnesses Number 1. Inspector Dhananjay Mishra, informant PW-1 2. Jaypal PW-2 3. H.C.P. 202 Rajkirti Singh PW-3 4. Satpal Singh PW-4 5. Parab Singh PW-5 6. Pratap Singh PW-6 7. Constable Arun Malik PW-7 8. H.C.P. 197 Mangeram PW-8 9. Inspector Ajay Pal Gautam, I.O. PW-9 9. To support the ocular version of the prosecution, following documentary evidence was also adduced and proved by prosecution ocular witnesses: S. No. Particulars Ext. Nos. Proved by 1. Copy of Charge sheet in Case Crime No. 258 of 2014 Ext. Ka-1 PW-1 2. Copy of charge sheet in Case Crime No. 259 of 2014 Ext. Ka-2 PW-1 3. Gang chart Ext. Ka-3 PW-1 4. Chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4 PW-1 5. Copy of Chick F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 258 of 2018 Ext. Ka-5 PW-2 6. Carbon copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-6 PW-3 7. Copy of Chick F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 259 of 2018 Ext. Ka-7 PW-4 8. Carbon copy of G.D. 37 Ext. Ka-8 PW-8 9. Photocopy of G.D. 33 Ext. Ka-9 PW-8 10. Photocopy of G.D. of Case Crime No. 259 of 2014 Ext. Ka-10 PW-8 11. Letter to S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar Ext. Ka-11 PW-9 12. Prosecution sanction Ext. Ka-12 PW-9 13. Charge sheet Ext. Ka-13 PW-9 10. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that entire prosecution case is false. He stated that false allegations have been levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and false case has been lodged due to partibandi. 11. Ka-11 PW-9 12. Prosecution sanction Ext. Ka-12 PW-9 13. Charge sheet Ext. Ka-13 PW-9 10. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that entire prosecution case is false. He stated that false allegations have been levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and false case has been lodged due to partibandi. 11. The defence has also adduced documentary evidence in the form of copy of order dated 24.04.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, District Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 173 of 2015 (State vs. Arvind and Others) arising out Case Crime No. 258 of 2014, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 376(D), 34 I.P.C. and order dated 24.04.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Muzffarnagar in S.T. No. 172 of 2015 (State vs. Arvind and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2014, under Sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the witnesses of the prosecution are police personnel, as such their testimony is not reliable. There are material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. The appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The cases shown against the appellant in the gang chart are false. There is no eye-witness of the cases alleged to have been committed by the appellant. The judgment of the trial court could not be sustained in the eye of law. The appellant deserves to be acquitted and accordingly, his appeal be allowed. 13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that out of the cases mentioned in the gang chart the appellant has been convicted in Case Crime Nos. 258 of 2014, under Section 364 IPC & 259 of 2014, under Sections 302, 201 IPC. The appellant is undergoing life imprisonment. The appellant is habitual offender and convicted in various cases. The appellant has organized a gang to commit the crime against the society like gang rape, murder, robbery, kidnapping etc. and concealment of evidence. Thus the appellant created atmosphere of fear and terror in the society. He is a hardened criminal and generally no one dare to adduce evidence against him. The defence could not establish any previous enmity with informant in their cases. Therefore, argument of defence is not tenable in this regard. and concealment of evidence. Thus the appellant created atmosphere of fear and terror in the society. He is a hardened criminal and generally no one dare to adduce evidence against him. The defence could not establish any previous enmity with informant in their cases. Therefore, argument of defence is not tenable in this regard. The prosecution has proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. In view of the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. at this stage a brief discussion of the evidence of prosecution and defence appears, imperative to reach at right conclusion. 15. PW-1 Inspector Dhananjay Mishra, PW-2 Jaipal, PW-3 Head Moharrir Raj Kirti Singh, PW-4 Satpal Singh, PW-5 Parab Singh and PW-6 Pratap Singh have fully supported the prosecution case in their examination. The defence could not point out any material contradiction in their cross-examination. 16. In all the cases mentioned in the gang chart complainant and relevant witnesses also examined, who proved in their examination the correctness of the gang chart. The gang chart was presented before the competent authority to obtain sanction for prosecution which was rightly granted and the same is proved by PW-9 as Ext. Ka-12. The evidence adduced by the defence could not fortify its stand in above circumstances. The allegations made against the appellant are established beyond reasonable doubts and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 17. In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the findings rendered by the learned trial court regarding conviction of the accused appellant. He did not challenge the conviction and confined his argument only regarding sentence. He argued that the sentence imposed is too harsh which deserves to be modified/ reduced to the period already undergone. 18. Learned A.G.A. opposed the argument and contended that the appellant is a hardened criminal and he has criminal history of heinous offences against him, therefore, he deserves no leniency in awarding the sentence. The sentence awarded by the learned trial court is just fair and proper and as per gravity of the offence. 19. 18. Learned A.G.A. opposed the argument and contended that the appellant is a hardened criminal and he has criminal history of heinous offences against him, therefore, he deserves no leniency in awarding the sentence. The sentence awarded by the learned trial court is just fair and proper and as per gravity of the offence. 19. In view of the above, the question is whether the quantum of sentence is too harsh and requires to be modified. 20. At this stage, brief legal resume about sentencing is imperative. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. In Criminal Appeal No. Nil of 2022 SLP arising out of Diary No. 21596 of 2020 State of Rajasthan vs. Banwari Lal and Another, the Apex Court referring Satish Kumar Janyanti Lal Dabgar vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 7 SCC 359 , has observed that the purpose and justification behind sentencing is retribution, incapitation, rehabilitation and deterrence as well. One of the prime objective of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is done. 21. In India there is no structured sentencing policy. As a matter of course, Indian parliament has not laid down any sentencing policy, though Malimath Committee (2003) and Madhava Menon Committee (2008) have asserted the need of sentencing policy in changing circumstances of the Indian society. In the absence of any such policy sentencing has been an issue of concerned before the Courts. 22. In Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) SCC 648, it has been observed by the Apex Court: “thus, there is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: keeping in view the twin objective of the sentencing deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” 23. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” 23. A perusal of catena of the decision of the Apex Court and various High Courts indicates that criminal jurisprudence of our country is reformative and corrective and not retributive, as the court considers that every accused is capable of being reformed and all measures should be taken to give them an opportunity of reformation to bring them into the main social stream. 24. In Mohd. Giasuddin vs. State of A.P. AIR 1977 SC 1926 , explaining rehabilitary and reformative aspects in sentencing it has been observed by the Supreme Court: “Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries.” 25. The term 'Proper Sentence' was explained in Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 by observing: “Sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the 'principle of proportionality'. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.” 26. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the 'principle of proportionality'. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.” 26. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166 , the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs. State of U.P. (2010) 12 SCC 532 , Guru Basavraj vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734 , Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441 and Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 : “reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. While considering imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of crime on the society as a whole and rule of law needs to be balanced. The judicial trend in the country has been towards striking a balance between reform and punishment. The protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain order and peace, should effectively meet challenges confronting the society, as society could not long endure and develop under serious threats of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. Law, as a tool to maintain order and peace, should effectively meet challenges confronting the society, as society could not long endure and develop under serious threats of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. At the same time, undue harshness should also be avoided keeping in view the reformative approach underlying in our criminal justice system.” 27. Thus, in many cases has tried to provide clarity on the issue. Apex Court has time and again cautioned guidelines in this behalf. 28. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country which is reformative and corrective and not retributive, this Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in the social stream. 29. As discussed above, 'reformative theory of punishment' is to be adopted and for that reason, it is necessary to impose punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of proportionality'. It appears from perusal of impugned judgment that sentence awarded by learned trial court for life term is very harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed above, has held that undue harshness should be avoided taking into account the reformative approach underlying in criminal justice system. 30. In the above backdrop of legal scenario it is mentioned that in the present appeal, the trial court convicting the appellant, sentenced him for ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 31. As discussed above, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction of the appellant but only prayed the court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone a Xerox copy is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant is on record. He submits that the FIR has been lodged against him on 6.11.2014. 31. As discussed above, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction of the appellant but only prayed the court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone a Xerox copy is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant is on record. He submits that the FIR has been lodged against him on 6.11.2014. As per the custody certificate, issued on 15.3.2023, by Jail Superintendent, Bareilly, the appellant has actually languishing in jail including remission for a period of 9 years, 4 months and 12 days, about a decade on that date however, on the date of judgment he is in incarceration about 9 years and 7 months. Thus the appellant is at the verge of almost completing his term of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant is an youngster of about 35 years. He was in jail for such a long period but no adverse conduct has been reported by jail Superintendent, concerned. Thus, there are fair chances of reformation of the accused and to join the mainstream of social milieu and to contribute towards developments of the society. In these circumstance, reduction of his sentence to the period of already undergone, will serve the ends of justice. 32. Resultantly, the instant appeal is partly allowed with following directions: (i) The judgment of the learned trial court dated 16.5.2019 regarding conviction of the appellant is confirmed and shall remain intact. (ii) In respect of his sentence of ten years rigorous Imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant. (iii) The amount of fine of Rs. 15,000/- imposed and its default period, shall remain intact. (iv) The appellant be released immediately, accordingly. (v) Appellant shall deposit, if not already deposited, the entire amount of fine within four months from the date of this judgment. (vi) A copy of judgment be sent to trial Court concerned, for necessary information and compliance. (vii) Trial court's record be remitted back forthwith. (viii) A sum of Rs. 5,000/- be provided to the learned Amicus Curiae Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for rendering his valuable help to the Court.