Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Allahabad Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated MANU/UP/3435/2018 - (09 Oct 2018) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Algu Gaur Vs. State of U.P.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present jail appeal has been preferred by Accused Appellant against judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In case of default in payment of fine, Appellant was also to undergo two months' additional rigorous imprisonment. It was submitted by learned counsel for Appellant that, prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 
Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only on the score that, nothing was mentioned to disclose the motive in the F.I.R. at initial stage. Though motive is an essential ingredient to constitute the crime but where there are eye account witnesses, motive loses its significance. The effect of motive attributed in the present matter has to be seen in the light of other evidence. 
So far as omissions, contradictions and laches are concerned, in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others; Court held that "prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." Further, in Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. 
As regards sentence awarded to Appellant is concerned, 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 further settled that, punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. 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, the enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Hence, punishment imposed upon Accused-Appellant by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant. 
As per the findings recorded by trial Court in the impugned judgment and order about existence of F.I.R., presence of PW-2 and PW-4 on the date, time and place of occurrence, motive, deceased was done to death by Accused Appellant before PW-2 and PW-4 using weapon assigned to him and also on the point of recovery of weapon 'spade' are based on correct appreciation of evidence. There is no conflict between oral and medical evidence. After receiving injuries, deceased died instantaneously and ingredients of offence under Section 302 of IPC are also clearly attracted in the present matter. 
Findings recorded by trial Court against Appellant in the impugned order are based on correct appreciation of evidence and same do not warrant interference by present Court. Minimum sentence has been imposed upon the Accused-Appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, jail appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of Appellant under Section 302 of IPC is upheld.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others; <manuid>MANU/SC/0553/2010</manuid>: 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC), Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, <manuid>MANU/SC/0188/2012</manuid>: (2012) 4 SCC 124</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Conviction, Evidence, Credibility</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>