# Ajay Kumar Shukla alias Chhottan Shukla v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 665
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-05-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 2010
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-shukla-alias-chhottan-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-42891
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Criminal Appeal-against conviction 8 years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
5000/-appeal against-confining prayer to
reduce punishment to already undergoneheld-while
considering
appropriate
punishment court not to keep in view the
rights of criminal but also careful about
rights of victim and the society at largeconviction 8 years reduced to 5 yearswithout charge in fine.

Held: Para-12
In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs.
State of W. B. [1994] 2 SCC 220, this Court
has observed that shockingly large number
of
criminals
go
unpunished
thereby
increasingly, encouraging the criminals
and in the ultimate making justice suffer
by weakening the system's creditability.
The imposition of appropriate punishment
is the manner in which the Court responds
to the society's cry for justice against the
criminal. Justice demands that Courts
should impose punishment befitting the
crime so that the Courts reflect public
abhorrence of the crime. The Court must
not only keep in view the rights of the
criminal but also the rights of the victim of
the crime and the society at large while
considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment. Similar view has also been
expressed in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan,
[1996] 2 SCC 175. It has been held in the
said case that it is the nature and gravity
of the crime but not the criminal, which
are
germane
for
consideration
of
appropriate punishment in a criminal trial.
The Court will be failing in its duty if
appropriate punishment is not awarded for
a crime which has been committed not
only against the individual victim but also
against the society to which the criminal
and victim belong. The punishment to be
awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant
but it should conform to and be consistent
with the atrocity and brutality with which
the crime has been perpetrated, the
enormity of the crime warranting public
abhorrence and it should "respond to the
society's
cry
for
justice
against
the
criminal". If for extremely heinous crime of
murder perpetrated in a very brutal
manner without any provocation, most
deterrent punishment is not given, the
case of deterrent punishment will lose its
relevance.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1991 SC 1463; [1994] 2 SCC 220; [1996]
2 SCC 175; AIR 2002 SC 760.

## Text

2 All] Ajay Kumar Shukla alias Chhottan Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
665
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 2010

Ajay Kumar Shukla alias Chhottan Shukla
 .Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, Sri Mata Prasad
Sri S.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Criminal Appeal-against conviction 8 years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
5000/-appeal against-confining prayer to
reduce punishment to already undergoneheld-while
considering
appropriate
punishment court not to keep in view the
rights of criminal but also careful about
rights of victim and the society at largeconviction 8 years reduced to 5 yearswithout charge in fine.

Held: Para-12
In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs.
State of W. B. [1994] 2 SCC 220, this Court
has observed that shockingly large number
of
criminals
go
unpunished
thereby
increasingly, encouraging the criminals
and in the ultimate making justice suffer
by weakening the system's creditability.
The imposition of appropriate punishment
is the manner in which the Court responds
to the society's cry for justice against the
criminal. Justice demands that Courts
should impose punishment befitting the
crime so that the Courts reflect public
abhorrence of the crime. The Court must
not only keep in view the rights of the
criminal but also the rights of the victim of
the crime and the society at large while
considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment. Similar view has also been
expressed in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan,
[1996] 2 SCC 175. It has been held in the
said case that it is the nature and gravity
of the crime but not the criminal, which
are
germane
for
consideration
of
appropriate punishment in a criminal trial.
The Court will be failing in its duty if
appropriate punishment is not awarded for
a crime which has been committed not
only against the individual victim but also
against the society to which the criminal
and victim belong. The punishment to be
awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant
but it should conform to and be consistent
with the atrocity and brutality with which
the crime has been perpetrated, the
enormity of the crime warranting public
abhorrence and it should "respond to the
society's
cry
for
justice
against
the
criminal". If for extremely heinous crime of
murder perpetrated in a very brutal
manner without any provocation, most
deterrent punishment is not given, the
case of deterrent punishment will lose its
relevance.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1991 SC 1463; [1994] 2 SCC 220; [1996]
2 SCC 175; AIR 2002 SC 760.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the
judgment and order dated 30.1.2010
passed by Sri M. S. Verma, the then Addl.
Sessions Judge, Court no. 9, Fatehpur in
S.T. no. 557 of 2005 (State Vs. Ajay
Kumar Shukla) arising out of Case crime
no. 140 of 2005 u/s 304 IPC, whereby the
appellant had been convicted for the
offence punishable u/s 304-II IPC and
sentenced to undergo 8-years' rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with
default stipulation.

2. Shorn of details, the prosecution
story was that on 4.7.2005 at 2:15 a.m. a
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
written report was lodged by complainant
Triloki Nath alleging that on 3.7.2005 at
about 8:00 p.m. while he was at home,
Rajjan Nai came to take medicines from
his brother Dhirendra Kumar Shukla and
as them came out of the room, accused
Chhottan Shukla armed with lathi came
there and started assaulting his brother
saying that why is he helping his father?
His shrieks attracted nephew Sudhir (s/o
Dhirendra) and Prem Dutt Shukla. This
incident was seen in the lantern light and
Rajjan Nai had a torch and all of them
saved the injured. After about 11⁄2 hour,
the injured stopped speaking. After
arranging vehicle the injured was taken to
the police station and thereafter, he was
sent for medical examination. On the
basis of written report case at crime no.
140/05 u/s 308, 504, 506 IPC was
registered against the accused-appellant,
investigation whereof was taken up by
S.O. Purshottam Yadav. Dr. Surendra
Pratap conducted medical examination of
Dhirendra Kumar Shukla on 4.7.2005 at
4.40 A. M. and he found following
injuries on his person:

1.Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the front
of the head;

2.Contusion 11 cm x 2 cm on the left
scapula;

3.Contusion with swelling 6 cm x 4
cm on the 2 cm below the right knee joint;

4.Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm at the upper
part of right tibia situated 5 cm below the
right knew joint;

5.Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm
x deep to skin and deep muscle on the 8
cm above the left ankle joint;

6.Contusion 7 cm x 4 cm on the 11
cm below the left knee joint.

The doctor kept injuries no. 1 and 6
under observation and x-ray was advised.
Rest injuries were simple, caused by blunt
object and duration was about 24-hours.
At
about
11.45
a.m.
on
4.7.2005
information regarding death of injured
was received and then the case was
converted into section 304 IPC. The
autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased
was conducted on 4.7.2005 at 3.00 p.m.
The doctor has noted that the deceased
has suffered death at 8.20 A.M. on the
same day in the hospital due to coma as a
result of ante-mortem head injury. The
investigation ended into charge-sheet
against the accused.

3. After committal of the case to the
Court of Session charge u/s 304 IPC was
framed against the appellant, who abjured
the guilt and claimed trial.

4. In support of the charge the
prosecution had examined complainant
Triloki Nath Shukla PW-1, Prem Dutt
PW-2, Jagdish Prasad Tripathi PW-3, SI
Purshottam Singh Yadav PW-4, SI
Rajendra Prasad PW-5, Dr. N. K. Saxena
PW-6, SI Shri Prakash Singh PW-7 and
Dr. Surendra Pratap PW-8.

5. The accused in his statement u/s
313 Cr. P. C. had again denied the entire
prosecution story and claimed false
implication on the ground that the
deceased was a drunkard, he used to eve
tease the ladies of the village and was
beaten by the people. The complainant
wanted to have his land very cheap, which
he declined so he falsely implicated him.
However, he has not produced any
evidence in defence.
2 All] Ajay Kumar Shukla alias Chhottan Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
667

6. The learned trial Court after
hearing the parties' counsel, has convicted
and sentenced the accused-appellant as
indicated in para-1 of the judgment above.

7. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the original
record of the trial Court.

8. During the course of hearing,
learned counsel for the appellant has not
pressed the appeal with regard to the
conviction of the appellant for the offence
punishable u/s 304-II IPC. However, he
has vehemently argued that custodial
sentence of 8-years', is quite harsh and
excessive, because the accused neither
had any intention to kill the deceased or
knowledge that he would be killed. His
further submission is that during trial the
accused had been in jail for about seven
months and now he is in prison since
30.1.2010 i. e. from the date of his
conviction by the learned trial Court.
Thus,
the
accused
has
suffered
imprisonment for about 4 years and 10
months, has argued the learned counsel. It
is lastly submitted that the accused
appellant be sentenced to imprisonment
for the period already undergone by him.
The learned AGA has however, opposed
the prayer made by the counsel for the
appellant.

9. Initially, the case was registered
u/s 308, 504 and 506 IPC, however, after
the death of Dhirendra Kumar Shukla, it
was converted into section 304 IPC and
the learned trial Court has found him
guilty u/s 304 Part-II IPC. The State has
not filed any appeal for conversion of the
conviction of the appellant into Part-I
section 304 IPC or for enhancement of the
sentence. Not pressing a criminal appeal
after the conviction of the accused by the
Court below, is like the confession of the
offence by the accused. The Courts
generally take lenient view in the matter
of awarding sentence to an accused in
criminal
trial
where
he
voluntarily
confesses his guilt, unless the facts of the
case warrants severe sentence.

10. In the case of Sevaka Perumal
etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991
SC 1463, the Apex Court in the matter of
awarding proper sentence to the accused
in a criminal trial has cautioned the
Courts as under:

"Undue
sympathy
to
impose
inadequate sentence would do more harm
to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law
and society could not long endure under
such serious threats. It is, therefore, 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 etc."

11. In the case of State of M. P. Vs.
Ghanshyam Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13 : 2003
Crl. LJ 4339 a division bench of the M. P.
High Court converted the conviction of
Ghanshyam Singh from 302 IPC to 304, PartI IPC and awarded custodial sentence of 2
years. It was observed by the Apex Court that
lesser sentence should not be imposed merely
on the ground of long pendency of matter. In
that case, it was further observed that two
years' custodial sentence for the offence under
Section 304, Part-I, IPC was not proper and
the sentence was enhanced to six years.
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. In the case of Dhananjoy
Chatterjee Vs. State of W. B. [1994] 2
SCC 220, this Court has observed that
shockingly large number of criminals go
unpunished
thereby
increasingly,
encouraging the criminals and in the
ultimate
making
justice
suffer
by
weakening the system's creditability. The
imposition of appropriate punishment is
the manner in which the Court responds to
the society's cry for justice against the
criminal. Justice demands that Courts
should impose punishment befitting the
crime so that the Courts reflect public
abhorrence of the crime. The Court must
not only keep in view the rights of the
criminal but also the rights of the victim of
the crime and the society at large while
considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment. Similar view has also been
expressed in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan,
[1996] 2 SCC 175. It has been held in the
said case that it is the nature and gravity of
the crime but not the criminal, which are
germane for consideration of appropriate
punishment in a criminal trial. The Court
will be failing in its duty if appropriate
punishment is not awarded for a crime
which has been committed not only against
the individual victim but also against the
society to which the criminal and victim
belong. The punishment to be awarded for
a crime must not be irrelevant but it should
conform to and be consistent with the
atrocity and brutality with which the crime
has been perpetrated, the enormity of the
crime warranting public abhorrence and it
should "respond to the society's cry for
justice against the criminal". If for
extremely heinous crime of murder
perpetrated in a very brutal manner without
any
provocation,
most
deterrent
punishment is not given, the case of
deterrent
punishment
will
lose
its
relevance.

13. In a case of assault between two
groups in regard to the right to bid for
certain shamlat land, consequent to which
two persons died due to the injuries
suffered in the attack, the trial Court held
that sentence of 8 years with a fine of Rs.
1,000 each would serve the ends of
justice. This sentence was reduced by the
High Court to a period of 5 years. The
Supreme Court held that the setence
awarded
by
the
High
Court
was
reasonable. [Vide - Tarsem Singh Vs.
State AIR 2002 SC 760]

14. Thus considering the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the above
mentioned
cases,
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, in my opinion,
the ends of justice would be met if the
custodial sentence of 8 years is reduced to
5-years' rigorous imprisonment without
reducing the amount of fine imposed by the
trial Court against the accused-appellant.

15. In view of the afore stated
reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The
conviction of the appellant u/s 304 PartII IPC is confirmed and rigorous
imprisonment of 8-years is reduced to 5years and sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-
with default stipulation as awarded by
the trial Court is maintained. The
appellant is in jail and would serve out
the remainder of his sentence if not
already completed.

16. Let certified copy of the
judgment be sent to the concerned Court
immediately
for
sending
modified
conviction warrant of the accusedappellant to the concerned prison.
--------
2 All] Ram Gopal Vs. Sahib Singh & Anr.
669
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1369 of 2009

Ram Gopal ...Appellant
Versus
Sahib Singh. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Balendu Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.S. Gandhi, Sri Rajesh Nath

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988- Section 173appeal
for
enhancement
of
compensation-descend aged about 14
years and the age of parent 30-35Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,54,500/-
applying principle of Kishan Gopal's caseNotional
income
per
annum
fixed
30,000/-applying 15 multiplier-would be
Rs. 4,50,000/-apart from Rs. 50,000/-for
love and affection award stand modified
accordingly.

Held: Para-7
Their Lordships' of Hon'ble Supreme
Court
awarded
an
amount
of
Rs.5,00,000/-
as
compensation.
The
compensation
awarded
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kishan
Gopal (supra) seems to be squarely
covered the present case. The age of the
deceased (supra) was 10 years and
parents'
age
was
36
years,
their
Lordships' held that the amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- by applying multiplier of
15 should be awarded, in case where the
age of the deceased children is between
10-15 years. Accordingly, the present
case is squarely covered by the aforesaid
judgment. In the present case, we also
assess
the
notional
income
at
Rs.30,000/- per annum and by applying
multiplier of 15, award compensation of
Rs.4,50,000/- for loss of life.

Case Law discussed:
2013 ACJ 2594.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent-insurance company. This is an
appeal under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, against the impugned award
dated 28.8.2009, passed by the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4,
Lucknow in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.372 of 2007.

2. The controversy relates to an
accident occurred on 2.8.2007 at about 3.30
PM, in which son of the appellant, namely
Rama Shanker @ Renu succumbed to
injuries on account of accident caused by a
truck bearing registration no. UP 78 AT
7325 due to rash and negligent driving,
when he was on his way to home on
bicycle. The deceased Rama Shanker @
Renu was the sole legal heir and survival of
the parents assisting in agriculture work
also. Father of the deceased, namely Ram
Gopal is aged about 36 years, whereas the
deceased was aged about 14 years. The
tribunal has recorded the finding that the
accident occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of the truck and awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,54,500/-
assessing the notional income at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per annum.

3.

The
respondent-insurance
company has not filed any appeal against
the finding recorded by the tribunal,
hence it seems to attain finality to the