# Ramesh Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 363 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-04-04 - **Bench:** Mrs. Ranjana Pandya - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-prasad-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-43636 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2012, passed by Sessions Judge Whereby the accused was found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. is confirmed but the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years under Section 376 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 6 years rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. is maintained. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State; Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State Of W. B. [1994] 2 SCC 220; 364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, [1996] 2 SCC 175; Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532; Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 1463 ## Text 4 All. Ramesh Prasad Yadav Vs State Of U.P. 363 "....that the doctrine of equality before law and equal protection of laws and equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and promotion enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination is attracted only when equals are treated as unequals or where unequals are treated as equals." 18. In the present case, at the time of filing of the writ petition the petitioner is stated to be 20 years of age. Now, after 22 years she must be 42 years of age. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the bread-earner who has died in harness. It cannot be presumed that the conditions which were existing at the time of death of the deceased employee will remain the same for 39 years as late Farooq Ahmad Khan has died in the year 1977. 19. In view of above, I do not find it a fit case to grant any indulgence, at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 2032 Of 2012 Ramesh Prasad Yadav ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Dinesh Pathak, Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, Rakesh Pathak Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2012, passed by Sessions Judge Whereby the accused was found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. is confirmed but the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years under Section 376 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 6 years rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. is maintained. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State; Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State Of W. B. [1994] 2 SCC 220; 364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, [1996] 2 SCC 175; Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532; Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 1463 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2012, passed by Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2010 (State vs. Ramesh Prasad Yadav), registered as Case Crime No. 1112 of 2009, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Pahadi, District Chitrakoot, whereby the accused was found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 11.11.2009, the victim aged about 17 years at 07:00 P.M. was returning home after attending the call of nature. Suddenly his neighbour Ramesh Prasad Yadav dragged her into the fields and raped her. When the victim tried to raise alarm, her mouth was pressed. When shrieks were heard, the informant proceeded to the spot who saw the accused raping the victim. On seeing the informant, the accused fled away. The accused was tried to chased by the informant but could not be apprehended but he was identified in the flash of the torch light, hence the application was lodged. 3. The investigation of the matter was entrusted to S.I. Nand Lal Singh, PW-7. The investigation was ended into a charge sheet. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. PW-1 is the victim who proved her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka-1. PW-2 is Chunkai who is the informant. PW-3 is Smt. Munni, mother of the victim and wife of the informant. PW-4 is S.I. Kundan Singh who submitted the charge sheet against the accused. PW-5 is Head Constable Kamta Prasad Pandey who scribed the chik and G.D. which was proved by this witness. PW-6 is Dr. Manju Singh who examined the victim and proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-11 and Exhibit Ka-12. PW-7 is S.I. Nand Lal Singh who is also the investigating officer. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the occurrence and has stated that he had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. No defence witness was adduced. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned lower court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in para 1 of the judgment. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal. 8. Heard Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the lower court record. 4 All. Ramesh Prasad Yadav Vs State Of U.P. 365 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not want to argue the appeal on merits but he only wants to advance his arguments on the quantum of sentence. However, he has vehemently argued that the custodial sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment is too harsh and excessive sentence because at the time of occurrence, the accused appellant Ramesh Prasad Yadav was only about 26 years of age and if he is directed to remain in jail, he will become a hardened criminal. Although at present the accused appellant is continuously in jail from 12.11.2009. Thus, the accused has already undergone in imprisonment for more than six years till date. It has lastly been submitted that the accused appellant be sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him i.e. 6 years. 10. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the appellant. 11. Not pressing the 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. 12. In the case of Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 1463, the Hon'ble 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." 13. In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of W. B. [1994] 2 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Apex 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 credibility. 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 366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 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. 14. Appropriate sentence is the cry of the society. Therefore, 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. 15. In Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, this Court observed thus: - "15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. 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. 16. 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." 16. It is not disputed that the accused appellant has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment which is quite a long period of incarceration. 17. Thus, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble 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 7 years rigorous imprisonment of the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 6 years, without reducing the amount of fine imposed by the trial court against the accused appellant. 18. In view of the aforestated reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. 19. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. is confirmed but the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years under Section 376 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 6 years rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. is maintained. 4 All. Ram Santosh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 367 20. The appellant is in jail and would serve out the remainder of his sentence if not already completed. He will be entitled to get remission, as regards, the period of sentence, as per rules. 21. Let certified copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court immediately for sending modified conviction warrant of the accused appellant to the concerned prison. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J. Service Single/ Writ Petition No.- 2389 Of 1992 Ram Santosh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Respondents: Chief Standing Counsel Daily Wager Regularization - Peon (Tehsil Gonda) since 1988; writ restored after being dismissed for nonprosecution - Held, eligible under UP Group D Daily Wages Regularization Rules 2001; engagement before 29.6.1991 and continuing in service on 21.12.2001; consider within 3 months per GOs 13.8.2015 & 24.2.2016. (Paras 1-3) No Continuous Service Requirement - Temporary appointment (1996) valid; ongoing work entitles regularization; arbitrary denial violates Art.14. (Paras 4-6) Writ Allowed Case Law discussed: 1. DTC Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 2. Maneka Gandhi Vs. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597 3. Raja Ram Pandey Vs. State of U.P., 2009(27) LCD 771 4. Ishwar Deen Vs. State of U.P., 2008(26) LCD 1134 5. Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 2008(1) UPLBEC 498 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioner, who was engaged purely on temporary basis from time to time on the post of Peon in the office of Tehsildar, Gonda, apprehending his retrenchment/removal, knocked the door of this Court by filing instant writ petition and this court while entertaining the writ petition passed an ad-interim order dated 22.4.1992, which reads as under:-