Akkshadha Srivastav
Published on: 13 August 2022 at 19:44 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently observed as it modified the sentence of an accused convicted under Section 304 Part 1 IPC.
‘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…’,The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi added whilst modifying the sentence of the appellant from life term to 10 years under the Section 304 Part 1 IPC conviction case.
By way of the appeal, the appellant, Babu, had challenged the Judgment and order dated 02.05.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC along with joint trial of further arising out of Case Crime No.1012 of 2012 (State Vs. Babu) under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station – Kotwali Badaun.
The FIR was filed by the appellant’s sister, the complainant averring that while returning home with her mother, the deceased victim, Rani, Babu and co-accused Munna came from behind when the former placed his hand on the shoulder of his mother eliciting a jerk from her as she moved ahead which vexed Babu, in the wake of which he drove a knife through his mother’s abdomen.
The Court noted that Kamlesh could not be brushed aside merely based on her familial relations with the deceased and that her testimony shall be scrutinised cautiously and circumspectly.
Forbye coming to the conclusion if the accused is the perpetrator of the offence, the Court also considered the question as to whether the sentence of life imprisonment and fine was adequate to the circumstances or the sentence required to be modified.
Stressing the “doctrine of proportionality” it ruled:
‘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.’
Further the Court stated that the verdict awarded by the trial court for a life term was very harsh keeping in view the entirety of the facts, conditions of the case, and the exigence of the offence.
As for the petitioner the sentence awarded to the appellant Babu by the trial court was reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.