Ashok Rani vs Raghvendra and Others

C.V. Sirpurkar, J.—1. This criminal revision for enhancement of sentence has been filed on behalf of victim/first informant Ashok Rani (hereinafter referred to in this order as "the victim"). It is directed against the sentence dated 12-01-2015 imposed by Special Judge, under (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sagar, in Special Sessions Trial No. 184/2009, whereby though respondents/accused persons Ragvendra, Arvind and Bhoopendra (hereinafter referred to in this order as "the convicts") were sentenced to only for a period already undergone by them in custody and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- each with a direction for rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month in case of default of payment of fine, under section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision may be summarized as hereunder: Respondents/accused persons Ragvendra @ Bade Bhaiya, Arvind @ Manjhle Bhaiya and Bhoopendra @ Halke Bhaiya Thakur were tried in the Court of Special Judge, Sagar for offences punishable under sections 294, 324 read with section 34 and 506 [Part - II] of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989.

After trial, the convicts were acquitted of the charge under sections 294, 506 [Part II] of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the aforesaid Act; however, they were convicted under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated above. It is pertinent to note here that period already undergone by the convicts in custody during pendency of investigation, inquiry and trial was mere 2 days.

Learned counsel for the victim has assailed the quantum of sentence imposed upon the convicts on the ground that it has been proved in the case that victim Ashok Rani had chased out the cattle belonging to convicts, who were causing damage to the crops standing in her field; whereon, the convicts armed with axe, Katarna and stick came and accosted her. Convict Ragvendra assaulted her with Katarna, Arvind assaulted her with axe and Bhoopendra assaulted her with stick. Though, none of the injuries was found to be grievous in nature the statement of independent official witness Medical Officer Dr. S.S. Thakur (PW-2) reveals that victim suffered as many as twelve injuries. Four of those injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. One of the injuries was under the left eye and other two were on the head. On the basis of aforesaid facts, it has been argued that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the sentence of imprisonment as undergone and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- is commensurate with the gravity of offence. Therefore, it has been prayed that the sentence be suitably enhanced.

Learned counsel for the convicts on the other hand, has submitted that they belonged to the same family and this was their first offence. The offence was committed under provocation. As such, the trial Court was justified in imposing the sentence it did.

On perusal of the record of the trial Court and due consideration of the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that this criminal revision must succeed for the reasons hereinafter stated.

It has been proved in the case that the victim was a 55 years old helpless widow. Her husband and the accused persons were on inimical terms. At the time of the incident, the cattle belonging to the accused persons were causing damage to the crops standing in the field of the victim. She was therefore perfectly justified in chasing the cattle out of the field. There was no justification for the accused persons to take umbrage at the fact that their cattle were chased out of the field of the victim. In fact they ought to have apologized for letting their cattle stray into her field. On the contrary, they proceeded to assault the victim with deadly weapons like axe, Katarna and stick. They mercilessly beat a middle aged woman and caused as many as twelve injuries which were as follows:

(1) A lacerated wound 3" X 1" X bone deep in dimension, on left forearm near wrist.

(2) An incised wound, 1 cm. X 1/2 cm. X muscle deep in dimension, on left arm near elbow joint.

(3) A lacerated wound, 2" X 2" X muscle deep in dimension, outside left eye.

(4) An incised wound, 2" X 1" X bone deep in dimension, on left side of head.

(5) An incised wound, 5" X 5 cm. X 1 cm. X bone deep in dimension, on left side of head, behind injury No. 4.

(6) A contusion, 1 cm. X 1 cm. in dimension, near the base of left index finger with swelling.

(7) A Contusion, on right shoulder 3" X 3" in dimension.

(8) A Contusion, on left side of the back 8" X 1" in dimension.

(9) A Contusion, 5" X 1" in dimension, below injury No. 8.

(10) A Contusion, 3" X 1" in dimension, on back.

(11) A Contusion on right wrist, 2" X 1" in dimension.

(12) Complained of pain on left buttock without any external mark of injury.

The injuries inflicted upon the victim, though not falling under definition of ''grievous hurt'', were pretty severe nevertheless. At any rate, there is no doubt that the victim was badly beaten-up by convicts, who were in their mid-twenties, for no fault on her part. At least three of the injuries were caused on parts of body, above neck. The facts of the case clearly betray intention on the part of the convicts to bully and terrorize the victim.

In aforesaid backdrop, learned trial Court has imposed an extremely light sentence on the grounds that the accused persons belonged to same family. This was their first offence. They were facing "tragedy" of trial for past 6 years and have resolved not to repeat the offence in future. It was also observed that the injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature.

It may be noted here that apart from the fact that this is first offence of the convicts, there is no extenuating circumstance available for letting them off with a flea bite. The resolved expressed by the accused persons they would not commit any offence in future, is meaningless, if not an eye wash. As already observed; though, none of the injuries was grievous in nature they were numerous and severe.

The Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ghanshyam Singh, , AIR 2003 SC 3191 that long pendency of matter cannot by itself justify lesser sentence. It was further observed that just and appropriate sentence is to be imposed after due consideration of facts and circumstances of each case. It was also observed that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. The 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.

In the case of State of U.P. vs. Kishan, , AIR 2005 SC 1250 the Supreme Court observed that object of imposing sentence is to protect society and deter criminals. Taking liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time, will be result-wise, counterproductive. The punishment imposed, must 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 should ''respond to the society''s cry for justice against the criminal''.

Judging by aforesaid yardstick, the victim is entitled to be felt cheated by the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge. Such negligible punishment of two days already spent in custody and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- each, travesty of justice. Therefore, this Court feels constrained to interfere with the sentence in exercise of powers vested in it by sub-section (1) of section 401 read with section 386(c)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It may be noted here that the conviction has not been challenged on behalf of the respondents.

Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon each of convicts is enhanced from two days (as undergone) of imprisonment to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment and sentence of fine imposed upon each of convicts in the sum of Rs. 1000/- is enhanced to Rs. 3000/-. The amount of fine actually realized from the convicts shall be paid to the victim Ashok Rani wife of Mardan Singh Adiwari (Gond), resident of Madhkhena, P.S. Surkhi, District Sagar, by way of compensation.

Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court immediately. The respondents shall surrender before the trial Court on 13-06-2016 for undergoing remaining part of their sentence. In the case of their failure to surrender on aforesaid date, the trial Court shall take coercive steps for the execution of the sentence imposed upon them by this Court.