Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 934 of 1995
Revisionist :- Adal Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajai Kumar Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar Misra, learned counsel for Revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgments and orders dated 10.03.1995 and 27.07.1995. The IInd Judicial Magistrate, Agra vide judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No.355 of 1994 convicted Revisionist and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 IPC; two years rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs.500/- under Section 304 A IPC and in default in payment of fine he was further to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Thereagainst Revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No.39 of 1995 before the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Court”) and Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal vide its judgment and order dated 27.07.1995, confirmed the judgment and order of Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for Revisionist contended that accident did not happen due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Revisionist but deceased herself was crossing the road negligently, hence she met with the accident, therefore, conviction and sentence of Revisionist is illegal and arbitrary.
4. However, I find that both Courts below have recorded concurrent findings that deceased and her son both were walking on the side of road and deceased was about 10-15 steps behind her son when the bus driver (Revisionist) hit her from back side. The incident took place near a crossing but the vehicle was running at high speed. These facts clearly show that accident took place due to negligent and rash driving by Revisionist and not in the manner as said by learned counsel for Revisionist.
5. Learned counsel for Revisionist has further confined his argument to the issue of sentence contending that sentence be reduced to period already undergone.
6. It is in this backdrop that I propose to consider the question of reduction of sentence as argued by learned counsel for Revisionist.
7. It is now well settled that in the matter of awarding punishment multiple factors have to be considered by Court. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of individuals as well as property of individuals is one of the essential functions of the State. The administration of criminal law justice is a mode to achieve this goal. The inherent cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice is that the punishment imposed on an offender should be adequate so as to serve the purpose of deterrence as well as reformation. It should reflect the crime, the offender has committed and should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Sentencing process should be sterned so as to give a message to the offender as well as the person like him roaming free in the society not to indulge in criminal activities but also to give a message to society that an offence if committed, would not go unpunished. The offender should be suitably punished so that society also get a message that if something wrong has been done, one will have to pay for it in proper manner irrespective of time lag.
8. Further sentencing process should be sterned but tampered with mercy where-ever it is so warranted. How and in what manner element of leniency shall prevail, will depend upon multifarious reasons including the facts and circumstances of individual case, nature of crime, the matter in which it was committed, whether preplanned or otherwise, the motive, conduct, nature of weapon used etc. But one cannot be lost sight of the fact that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system as it is bound to undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law. The society cannot long endure such serious threats. It is duty of the court to give adequate, proper and suitable sentence having regard to various aspects, some of which, are noticed above.
9. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another Vs. State of Gujrat, 2009 (7) SCC 254, the Court confirmed that:
“any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system”. (Emphasis added)
10. In Jameel Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (12) SCC 532, the Court held that:
“It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.”
11. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2012 (8) SCC 734, the Court said that:
“The cry of the collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored.”
12. In Gopal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (3) JT 444, the court said that:
“Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence”
13. In Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar and another, 2013 (9) SCC 516, the Court observed that:
“We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment”. (Emphasis added)
14. The learned counsel for Revisionist has failed to show that punishment awarded by Court below, is unjust, arbitrary or otherwise illegal. However, what it is trying to take advantage is that the act of the Court should come to his rescue, inasmuch as, it is this Court which has taken two decades and more and taking up this revision and this should come to rescue of the Revisionist for making reduction in punishment drastically though otherwise what has been done by the Court below cannot be said per-se illegal, unjust or improper. It is well settled that the act of the Court prejudice none. The failure of this Court in taking up these matters within the reasonable time should not become a hand to the offender like present one to claim reduction in the punishment as a matter of right, ignoring the fact that the society requires that an offender should be punished adequately and over the above the victim, who has suffered, is waiting for its own rights in having the offender punished suitably, even if the system of justice takes a long time. The delay in Courts cannot become a factor to convert an accused as a victim ignoring all the rights of the actual victim, who has suffered. Moreover, when the finding of guilty and punishment imposed by the Court below is not found erroneous in any manner, I am of the view that such an order of the Courts below cannot be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
15. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
16. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date : 22.08.2019 Manish Himwan