HIRA LAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2268 of 2008

Hira Lal And Others
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                   :   Sriprakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   Govt. Advocate

Court No. - 85
                 HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sriprakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionists and
learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order
dated 12.08.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2,
Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2008 (Hira Lal and others Vs. State)
convicting and sentencing the appellants, under Sections 325/34 and 323/34
of IPC, arises out of the judgment and order dated 7.1.2008 passed by 5th
Additional Civil Judge, (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No. 517
of 2007 (State Vs. Hira Lal and others) convicting the revisionists under
Section 323/34 IPC, for six months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each,
under Section 325/34 of IPC, for two years imprisonment and fine of Rs.
5000/- each, in case of default of payment of fine, they shall to undergo
further six months imprisonment, and under Section 504 of IPC, for one year
imprisonment and against such order the revisionists filed a Criminal Appeal
No. 2 of 2008, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2008 and
confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

3. The only submission on behalf of the revisionists is that for the offence
under Section 325/34 I.P.C. the trial Court has imposed sentence upon
accused-revisionists for two years out of which the revisionists have served
more than six months and are suffering several ailments. It is also submitted
that neither accused revisionists are habitual offenders nor were convicted in
any other case. Thus, it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused-
revisionists that sentence awarded by the trial Court vide impugned
                                                           CRLR No. 2268 of 2008
                                 2


judgment and order be modified and accused-revisionists be released in this
matter on the basis of imprisonment already undergone. It is next submitted
that if any fine would be imposed by the Court, revisionists are ready to
deposit the same.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. supporting the findings recorded by
trial Courts in the impugned judgments and order submitted that there is no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgements and orders. Prosecution
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has awarded
sentence to the revisionists according to the gravity of the offence committed
by them.

5. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

6. Since learned counsel for the accused revisionists did not challenge the
findings recorded by trial Court in the impugned judgment and order
regarding guilt of accused-revisionists for the alleged offences and confined
his argument only to the sentence awarded by trial Court to accused-
revisionists, I do not propose to scrutinize the entire evidence minutely in
this regard. However, a perusal of entire record including the impugned
judgment and order shows that trial Court has considered in detail the entire
evidence available on record regarding guilt of accused-revisionists for the
said offences and keeping in view the offence committed by accused-
revisionist, I am also of the opinion that prosecution was able to establish the
guilt of accused-revisionist for the aforesaid offences beyond reasonable
doubt. The findings recorded by the trial Court to constitute offence under
Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C. against accused-revisionists are
correct and the same do not warrant interference by this Court.

7. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is a well settled
principle that sentence must be just and should simultaneously follow the
principle of proportionality between the crime and the punishment.
Punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just
punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A
punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of
proportionality allows a significant discretion to the court but the same has
to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability,
the antecedents of the accused, manner of assault, the factum of age, the
                                                           CRLR No. 2268 of 2008
                                 3


potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his
reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect -
propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of
time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum
bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the
parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the
valuebased social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to
emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed
manner.

8. It has been observed by the Apex Court that there can neither be a
straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It
would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial
discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor selfadhered
moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have
any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of.
Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely
on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh
the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other
concomitant factors which have been indicated hereinbefore and also have
been stated in a number of pronouncements by Apex Court. On such
touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in
the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just
punishment. A court, while imposing sentence, has to keep in view the
various complex matters in mind. In respect of certain offences, sentence can
be reduced by giving adequate special reasons but the special reasons have
to rest on real special circumstances.

9. In the instant case, it has been more than 28 years since the alleged
incident took place. Accused-revisionists alone cannot be held responsible
for long delay in disposal of this case. Revisionists are not previous convict.
Revisionists were on bail during trial of the case as well as during the
pendency of the criminal appeal before the appellate court and they had
never misused the liberty of bail granted to them. It was stated that accused-
revisionists remained in custody for more than six months and are suffering
from several ailments. Considering all aspects of the matter, no useful
purpose would be served by sending accused-revisionists to judicial custody
at this stage, rather it would be appropriate that sentence of three years
imprisonment awarded by the lower appellate Court be reduced to the period
                                                                                             CRLR No. 2268 of 2008
                                                                    4


                                    already undergone by them along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- each.

                                    10. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed and the sentence
                                    awarded by the lower appellate Court is hereby reduced to the period already
                                    undergone by the revisionists along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each. Their
                                    personal and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The
                                    accused-revisionists are directed to deposit fine of Rs. 20,000/- each within
                                    two months from today. In default of payment of fine, accused-revisionists
                                    shall undergo imprisonment of three months.

                                    11. A copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.




                                    September 30, 2026
                                    S.K.S.
                                                                                     (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad