# Ram Narayan (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5884 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-narayan-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46173
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

law
-
appeal
against
conviction - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 304 - Doctrine of proportionality -
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
proportionately - 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 - Purpose of just
punishment - society may not suffer again
by such crime - courts must not only keep
in view the right of victim of crime but
also society at large. (Para -10,11,13)

Accused /appellant (cobbler by profession) - in
drunken state - assaulted and caused serious
injuries to nephew of complainant - with sharp
edged weapon (joote ghantane wali rapi) on his
thigh repeatedly - died during treatment -
Appellant does not propose to challenge the
impugned judgement and order on merits -
prayed for modification - order of the sentence
for the period already undergone - ground -
incident
was
neither
preplanned
nor
premeditated - result of a sudden assault - no
intention to commit the murder of the deceased
. (Para 2,4)

HELD:-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. Conviction of the appellant is upheld.
Ends of justice would be met if the accused is
sentenced with the period already undergone by
him in prison. Sentence modified by the period
already undergone and served out by the
appellant in prison.(Para - 14,15,16)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-
9 All. Ram Narayan Vs. State of U.P.
269

## Text

268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
established
the
charge
beyond
all
reasonable doubt and there is no warrant
for us to interfere with the impugned
judgment.

70. In the result, this appeal fails and
is dismissed. The impugned judgment
passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge is affirmed. The appellants, Sadhu,
Devendra and Srikrishna are on bail. They
shall surrender immediately before the
Trial Court to serve out the sentences,
awarded to each of them. In the event of
default,
the
Trial
Court
shall
take
immediate steps to take them into custody
and commit them to prison.

71. Let this order be certified to the
Trial Court by the office and separately
communicated
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance) through the learned Sessions
Judge, Budaun. Let a copy of this order be
also communicated to appellant no.1,
Pratap Singh, who is in jail, through the Jail
Superintendent, Budaun, or wherever he is
serving his sentence, by the Registrar
(Compliance).

72. The lower court records shall be
sent down forthwith.
----------
(2021)09ILR A268
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5884 of 2019

Ram Narayan ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Kailash Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A)
Criminal
law
-
appeal
against
conviction - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 304 - Doctrine of proportionality -
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
proportionately - 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 - Purpose of just
punishment - society may not suffer again
by such crime - courts must not only keep
in view the right of victim of crime but
also society at large. (Para -10,11,13)

Accused /appellant (cobbler by profession) - in
drunken state - assaulted and caused serious
injuries to nephew of complainant - with sharp
edged weapon (joote ghantane wali rapi) on his
thigh repeatedly - died during treatment -
Appellant does not propose to challenge the
impugned judgement and order on merits -
prayed for modification - order of the sentence
for the period already undergone - ground -
incident
was
neither
preplanned
nor
premeditated - result of a sudden assault - no
intention to commit the murder of the deceased
. (Para 2,4)

HELD:-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. Conviction of the appellant is upheld.
Ends of justice would be met if the accused is
sentenced with the period already undergone by
him in prison. Sentence modified by the period
already undergone and served out by the
appellant in prison.(Para - 14,15,16)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-
9 All. Ram Narayan Vs. State of U.P.
269
1. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of AP, AIR 1977 SC
1926

2. Sham Sunder Vs Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731

3. St. of M.P .Vs Najab Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 509

4. Jameel Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532

5. Guru Basavraj Vs St. of Karn., (2012) 8 SCC
734

6. Deo Narain Mandal Vs St. of UP, (2004) 7
SCC 257

7. Shyam Narain Vs St. (NCT of delhi), (2013)
7 SCC 77

8. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7
SCC 323

9. St. of Pun. Vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC
441

10. Raj Bala Vs St. of Har., (2016) 1 SCC 463

11.
Kokaiyabai
Yadav
Vs

St.

of
Chhattisgarh,(2017) 13 SCC 449

12. Ravada Sasikala Vs St. of A.P., AIR 2017
SC 1166

13. Jameel Vs St. of UP, (2010) 12 SCC 532

14. Guru Basavraj Vs St. of Karn., (2012) 8
SCC 734

15. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7
SCC 323

16. St. of Punj.Vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC
441

17. Raj Bala Vs St. of Har., (2016) 1 SCC 463

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been filed
against a judgement dated 25.7.2019 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC,
Court no. 52, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No.
265 of 2015 (State vs. Ram Narayan),
arising out of Case Crime no. 231 of 2015,
under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S. Bidhanu,
district-Kanpur Nagar, whereby learned
Judge
convicted
and
sentenced
the
appellant to 7 years simple imprisonment

2. The prosecution story in brief is
that on 17.4.2015 at about 9:00 p.m.
nephew of the complainant, namely,
Manish Savita son of late Brij Lal Savita,
was present in his saloon which situates at
Rodhakpur road near Nihal Baba temple
and besides his shop there is a cobbler shop
of Ram Narain who in drunken state
assaulted and caused serious injuries to the
nephew of the complainant with sharp
edged weapon (joote ghantane wali rapi)
on his thigh repeatedly. The injured was
taken to the hospital by his family
members, namely, Suni Sangeet and Raj
Kumar
for
treatment,
where
during
treatment he died.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the appellant, on instructions, stated that
he does not propose to challenge the
impugned judgement and order on its
merits.
He,
however,
prayed
for
modification of the order of the sentence
for the period already undergone by the
appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant submits that the incident was
neither preplanned nor premeditated but
was a result of a sudden assault and there
was no intention on the part of the accused
to commit the murder of the deceased. He
also submits that the accused-appellant is a
poor handicapped person, who is cobbler
by profession and he is the only bread
earner in his family and his family is at the
verge of starvation. The accused appellant
had been in jail during trial and after
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conviction he is in jail. As such, the
accused has already served out more than
five
years
of
the
sentence.
Further
submission is that it was the first offence of
the accused and after conviction the
accused had not indulged in any other
criminal activity. He next submits that
although the trial court has convicted the
present accused on the basis of mere
conjuncture
while
the
appellant
is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case with the ulterior
intention of harassing him. He also submits
that on the question of legality of sentence
he is not pressing this appeal and only
pressing on the quantum of sentence and he
has
prayed
for
taking
lenient
view
considering the age of the accused and his
age related ailments.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the submission made by learned
counsel for the appellant. He has however,
submits that if slight reduction in sentence
is made, he has no objection.

6. I have perused the entire material
available on record and the evidence as
well as judgment of the trial court. The
learned counsel for the accused-appellant
does not want to press the appeal on its
merit and requests to take a lenient view of
the matter.

7. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of
AP, AIR 1977 SC 1926, explaining
rehabilitary & 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."

8. In Sham Sunder vs Puran, (1990)
4 SCC 731, where the high court reduced
the sentence for the offence under section
304 part I into undergone, the supreme
court opined that the sentence needs to be
enhanced being inadequate. It was held:

"The
court
in
fixing
the
punishment for any particular crime should
take into consideration the nature of
offence, the circumstances in which it was
committed, the degree of deliberation
shown by the offender. The measure of
punishment should be proportionate to the
gravity of offence."

9. In State of MP vs Najab Khan,
(2013) 9 SCC 509, the high court, while
upholding conviction, reduced the sentence
of 3 years by already undergone which was
only 15 days. The supreme court restored
the sentence awarded by the trial court.
Referring the judgments in Jameel vs State
of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532, Guru Basavraj
9 All. Ram Narayan Vs. State of U.P.
271
vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734,
the court observed as follows:-

"In
operating
the
sentencing
system, law should adopt the corrective
machinery or the deterrence based on
factual matrix. The facts and given
circumstances in each case, the nature of
the crime, the manner in which it was
planned and committed, the motive for
commission of the crime, the conduct of
the accused, the nature of weapons used
and all other attending circumstances are
relevant facts which would enter into the
area of consideration. We also reiterate that
undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the justice
dispensation system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law. It
is the duty of court to award proper
sentence having regard to the nature of
offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed. The courts must
not only keep in view the rights of victim
of the crime but also the society at large
while
considering
the
imposition
of
appropriate punishment."

10. Earlier, "Proper Sentence" was
explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State
of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 by observing that
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
proportionately. 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.

11. In subsequent decisions, the
supreme court has laid emphasis on
proportional sentencing by affirming the
doctrine of proportionality. In Shyam
Narain vs State (NCT of delhi), (2013) 7
SCC 77, it was pointed out that sentencing
for any offence has a social goal. Sentence
is to be imposed with regard being had to
the nature of the offence and the manner in
which the offence has been committed. The
fundamental purpose of imposition of
sentence is based on the principle that the
accused must realize that the crime
committed by him has not only created a
dent in the life of the victim but also a
concavity in the social fabric. The purpose
of just punishment is that the society may
not suffer again by such crime. The
principle of proportionality between the
crime committed and the penalty imposed
are to be kept in mind. The impact on the
society as a whole has to be seen. Similar
view has been expressed in 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.

12. In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of
Chhattisgarh(2017) 13 SCC 449, it has
been observed that reforming criminals
who understand their wrongdoing, are able
to comprehend their acts,have grown and
nartured into citizens with a desire to live a
fruitful life in the outside world, have the
capacity of humanising the world.

13. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of
A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme Court
referred the judgments in Jameel vs State of
UP (2010) 12 SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs
State of Karnatak, (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 and has
reiterated that, in operating the sentencing
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
At the same time, undue harshness should
also be avoided keeping in view the
reformative approach underlying in our
criminal justice system.

14. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping
in view criminal jurisprudence 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.

15. Since the learned counsel for
appellant has not pressed the appeal on
merits, however, this Court after perusal of
the entire evidence on record and judgment
of the learned Trial Court considers that the
appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, the conviction of the
appellant is upheld.

16. So far as the quantum of sentence
is concerned, this Court considers that the
ends of justice would be met if the accused
is sentenced with the period already
undergone by him in prison.

17. Accordingly, the conviction is
upheld. The appeal is partly allowed with
the modification of the sentence by the
period already undergone and served out by
the appellant in prison. The appellant be
released from the jail.

18. Office is directed to transmit the
lower court record along with a copy of this
judgment to the learned court below for
information and necessary compliance as
warranted.

19. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad, self attested by the learned
counsel for the applicant alongwith a self
attested identity proof of the said persons
(preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the
mobile number (s) to which the said
9 All. Gautam Vs. State of U.P.
273
Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned
Court/Authority/Official.

20. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)09ILR A273
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6093 of 2017

Gautam ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri R.K. Sinha, Sri R.K. Mishra, Sri Anand
Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal law
- appeal against
conviction - The Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 376 - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973
- Section
161,313
- Just
punishment is the
collective cry of the society - While the
collective cry has to be kept uppermost
in
the
mind
-

Principle
of
proportionality between the crime and
punishment cannot be totally brushed
aside - Principle of just punishment is
the bedrock of sentencing in respect of
a criminal offence.(Para - 22)

Father (PW-1) of victim (PW-2) lodged an
F.I.R. against appellant - allegation - on
25.5.2012 at about 2.30 p.m. - his daughter
(PW-2 , victim) aged about 7 years - playing
near the hand-pump - appellant has taken
her away near trees of dates & forcefully
raped her - victim screamed - brother of the
first informant reached on the spot - saw the
alleged incident - appellant absconded from
the
place
of
occurrence
-
trial court
convicted the accused-appellant - hence
appeal.

HELD:-The conviction of appellant-accused
under section 376 I.P.C. is confirmed but the
rigorous imprisonment of 10 years reduced
to
period
already
undergone
by
the
appellant-accused in jail but fine clause shall
be unaltered. (Para -25)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs St. of T.N., AIR 1991
SC 1463,

2. Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs St. of W. B., [1994]
2 SCC 220,

3. Ravji v. St. of Raj., [1996] 2 SCC 175

4. Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed &
anr. Vs St. of Guj., (2009) 7 SCC 254

5. Jameel Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532

6. Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa Vs St. of
Karn. (2012) 8 SCC 734

7. Gopal Singh Vs St. of Uttarakhand, JT 2013
(3) SC 444

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
appellant against the judgement and order
dated 30.8.2017 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Court
No. 2, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial No.
704 of 2012 (State Vs. Gautam) in Case
Crime No. 306 of 2012, under section 376
I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat,
District Bulandshahar by which appellant