Shakir Ahmed vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Jain-II, J.—Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. This revision petition u/s 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as ''the Appellate Court'') in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2013, whereby the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction dated 19.02.2013, but modified the order of sentence dated 19.02.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as ''the Trial Court'') against the accused-petitioner in Criminal Case No. 993/2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner u/s 457 IPC to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month''s simple imprisonment; u/s 380 IPC to undergo one year''s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Learned Appellate Court while modifying the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections 457 and 380 IPC to undergo eight months simple imprisonment for each Section along with the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court.

The concise facts of the case are that a written report was submitted on 27.01.2012 by the complainant Shri Ajay Kumar Nagar at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur with regard to an incident. On the basis of aforesaid report, a criminal case bearing No. 23/2012 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was registered and investigation commenced in the matter. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charge against the present accused-petitioner under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Accused-petitioner denied the allegation of commission of aforesaid offences against him, pleaded innocence and claimed trial.

Prosecution supported its case with the aid of 10 witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. In defence 3 witnesses were examined by the accused-petitioner. Statement of accused petitioner was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he refused the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence stating that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statements of accused-petitioner u/s 313 Cr.P.C., learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2013 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as stated hereinabove. Against the said judgment and order, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2013 partly allowed the appeal of the accused-petitioner, maintained the judgment of conviction of the accused-petitioner under Sections 457 and 380 IPC passed by the learned Trial Court, but modified the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in the terms as stated hereinabove.

Being aggrieved with the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, the accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner firstly argued the case on merits and contended that both the Courts below erred in relying upon and appreciating the prosecution evidence for convicting the accused-petitioner as the material available on record does not prove the offences alleged against the accused-petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no witness of place of occurrence and the version of the prosecution is not believable. The accused-petitioner has been convicted by the Courts below without following the theory of trial and he has been convicted only on the basis of factual aspect. There is no independent witness of the case and the witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon. The accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case, while he has no role in the commission of alleged offence. It is further contended that learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court both have committed grave error in convicting the accused-petitioner for alleged offences. Impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures, faulty presumption and misreading of evidence.

Finally learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that the present case is pending since 2012 and, therefore, the accused-petitioner does not want to press this revision petition on merits. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further contended that looking to the age of the accused-petitioner; his family status; further the incidence pertains to year 2012, lenient view may be taken in the present matter by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that the accused-petitioner may either be granted benefit of probation or in the alternative, the punishment/sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the courts below, being too harsh, may be considered sympathetically and may favourably be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-petitioner.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further submitted that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars from 18.07.2012 till today i.e. near about ten months in all.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and submitted that the accused-petitioner is hardcore criminal and number of cases have been registered against him. Every time he has misused the liberty granted to him. He has submitted that looking to the criminal background of the accused-petitioner, sentence awarded to him by the Courts below may be maintained by this Court.

From the scrutiny of prosecution evidence and the findings recorded by both the Courts below, I am satisfied that learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is right in not pressing this revision petition on merits. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is concerned, there is no doubt that the incident in the present case took place in the year 2012. During pendency of this revision petition and at the time of investigation, trial and appeal, the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for near about ten months. The punitive theory of punishment and deterrent theory of punishment have to left their force considering the fact that the incident in the present matter took place in the year 2012. Jurists have formulated some principles regarding punishments and these recent trends have been recognized and approved by Hon''ble Supreme Court also for ordinary crimes, although some special crimes have been excluded. A sentence or pattern of sentence which fails to take due account of the gravity of the offence can seriously undermine respect for law. The sentence should neither be too lenient nor disproportionately severe. The former looses its deterrent effect and the latter has a tendency to tempt the offenders to commit a more serious offence. It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment as a measure of social necessity as a means of deterring other potential offenders. Punishment to be effective must be sufficient, an insufficient punishment is a greater evil than an excess or rigour; for an insufficient punishment is an evil wholly thrown away. No good results can be expected either from the public who are left exposed to the like offences nor to the offender whom it makes no better. Punishment to be proper, effective and purposeful must fit not only the crime but also the criminal. A Court should weigh the sentence with reference to the crime committed and the circumstances of the case and the fact whether the criminal is a first offender or a habitual or professional offender, but not with reference to anything which may happen subsequently.

So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the present case the incident occurred as back as in the year 2012. The accused-petitioner had been facing trial for quite long time; he has remained in jail for near about ten months also. The purpose of the Court is not merely to punish the accused-persons, but also to ensure that harmony be maintained with the society, therefore, it will not be proper for the accused-petitioner to remain in custody for a long period. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, I want to give one more chance to reform the accused-petitioner. Thus, considering the fact that further incarceration of the accused-petitioner would not achieve any beneficial purpose, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner by the Trial Court and modified by the Appellate Court to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

In the result, I maintain the judgments and orders of conviction passed by the Courts below against the accused-petitioner but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the accused-petitioner has already undergone imprisonment of near about ten months, as aforesaid mentioned, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing the accused-petitioner to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-petitioner namely Shakir Ahmed S/o. Shri Shakoor Ahmed under Sections 457 and 380 IPC is maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is modified/reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is maintained. The accused-petitioner is in jail. The Trial Court is directed to release the accused-petitioner forthwith in this case, in case he is not required in any other case. Registry is directed to sent the record of both the Courts below along with copy of this judgment for compliance forthwith. Application for suspension of sentence also stands disposed of.