Chattisgarh High Court
Majir @ Majhil @ Najruddin vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 November, 2023
1
Order reserved on 17.08.2023
Order delivered on 10.11.2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 673 of 2012
1. Anwar S/o Shahjahan Aged About 20 Years R/o Vill. Saitangar Toli, Thana
And Distt. Jashpur C.G.
2. Quddus S/o Mauddin Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill. Saitangar Toli, Thana
And Disttt. Jashpur C.G.
---- Applicants
Versus
• State Of C.G. Through The Police Chowki Lodam, PS Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur
C.G.
---- Respondent
& CRR No. 674 of 2012 • Ghusuru @ Safeul S/o Rahman Aged About 36 Years R/o Vill. Saitangar Toli, Thana And Distt. Jashpur C.G.
---- Applicant Versus • State Of C.G. Through The Police Chowki Lodam, PS Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur C.G.
---- Respondent & CRR No. 675 of 2012 • Nazmul S/o Sahadat Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill. Saitangar Toli, Thana And Distt. Jashpur C.G.
---- Applicant Versus • State Of C.G. Through The Police Chowki Lodam, PS Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur C.G.
---- Respondent 2 For Applicants : Shri N.K.Malviya, Advocate For State : Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer & CRR No. 67 of 2020
1. Majir @ Majhil @ Najruddin S/o Abbas@Jabruddin Aged About 40 Years Caste - Muslim, Resident Of Village - Saitangertoli, Lodam, Chowki-Lodam, Police Station - Jashpurnagar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh
2. Pechki @ Saneul S/o Rahman Aged About 35 Years Caste - Muslim, Resident Of Village - Saitangertoli, Lodam, Chowki-Lodam, Police Station - Jashpurnagar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh,
---- Applicants Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Throgh The District Magistrate, Jashpur, District - Jaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent For Applicants : Shri Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate For State : Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V ORDER CRR No.673/2012 is arising out of judgment passed in Cr.A.No.47/2012, CRR No.674/2012 is arising out of judgment passed in Cr.A.No.15/2012, CRR No.675/2012 is arising out of judgment passed in Cr.A.No.14/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur and CRR No.67/2020 is arising out of judgment passed in Cr.A.No.11/2019 and Cr.A.No.13/2019 by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District - Jashpur wherein the appeals filed by the aforesaid applicants were dismissed and their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned JMFC and CJM was maintained.
2. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced as described below :
3Applicants - Anwar and Quddus Conviction Sentence U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 1 year, fine of Rs.500 (in default 2 months' R.I.) R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500/- (in U/S 332 of IPC default 2-2 months R.I.) U/S 353 of IPC R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500 (in default 2-2 months R.I.) U/s 341 of IPC Fine of Rs.500/- (in default 2 months R.I.) All the sentence to run concurrently Applicant - Ghusuru @ Safeul Conviction Sentence U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 1 year, fine of Rs.500 (in default 2 months' R.I.) R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500/- (in U/S 332 of IPC default 2 months R.I.) U/S 353 of IPC R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500 (in default 2 months R.I.) U/s 341 of IPC Fine of Rs.500/- (in default 2 months' R.I.) All the sentence to run concurrently Applicant - Nazmul Conviction Sentence U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 1 year, fine of Rs.500 (in default 2 months' R.I.) R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500/- (in 4 U/S 332 of IPC default 2 months R.I.) U/S 353 of IPC R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500 (in default 2 months' R.I.) U/s 341 of IPC Fine of Rs.500/- (in default 2 months R.I.) All the sentence to run concurrently Applicants - Majir @ Majhil @ Najruddin Conviction Sentence U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 1 year, fine of Rs.500 (in default of payment of fine 2 months' R.I.) R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500/- (in default of payment of fine, 2 U/S 332/149 of IPC months R.I.) U/S 353/149 of IPC R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500 (in default of payment of fine, 2 months R.I.) U/s 341/149 of IPC Fine of Rs.500/- (in default 7 days' R.I.) All the sentence to run concurrently Applicant - Pechki @ Saneul -
Conviction Sentence
U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 1 year, fine of Rs.500 (in
default 2 months' R.I.)
R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500/- (in
U/S 332/149 of IPC default 2 months R.I.)
U/S 353/149 of IPC R.I. for 1 year fine Rs.500/- (in
default 2 months R.I.)
5
U/s 341/149 of IPC Fine of Rs.500/- (in default 7
days' R.I.
All the sentence to run
concurrently
3. Since the aforesaid revisions are arising out of same crime number 333/2009 registered at police chowki - Lodam, they are being heard and decided by this common order.
4. Facts of the case is that Head Constable Shyamlal Dwivedi lodged a report in police chowki - Lodam, Police Station - Jashpur on 26/11/2009 that complainant and other staff members Constable No.366 Mithilesh, Constable No.391 Moolchand, Constable No.273 Tarsiyus Minj, Constable No.101 Ignasiyus, Constable No.396 Santosh Banjare, Constable No.389 Ajay Tirki, Constable No.390 Kripa Sindhu and Constable No.415 Satish Minj proceeded for execution of warrant to village-Saitangartoli and thereafter, while returning to police chowki - Lodam, near Shankh River, two boys i.e. Karaamat and one unknown started running after seeing them. On suspicion, they were caught.
When Karaamat was taken by Constable Santosh Banjare (PW6) and other suspect was taken by complainant - Shyamlal on their motor cycle for interrogation, on the way, near bus stand - Lodam, accused - Ghusuru, Majir, Nazmul, Pechki, Quddus, Mujjaffar and Anwar, resident of Saitangartoli stopped them by showing them hands and abused and started threatening of dire consequences. In the meanwhile, an unknown boy threw stone which hit to Constable Santosh Banjare. Thereafter, the other accused also started beating with hands and fists and took away the suspects from the custody of the police and thereby committed obstruction in the Government work.
5. On the basis of information of the complainant - Shyamlal Dwivedi, FIR was lodged and thereafter, numbered FIR No.333/2009 was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, injured - Santosh Banjare was medically examined. Spot map was prepared in Ex.P/2. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed in the absence of the accused as they were absconding, offence under Section 147, 149, 341, 294, 506 (B), 323, 353, 332 of IPC. During the pendency of the trial, accused Majir @ Majhil @ Najruddin and Pechki @ Saneul were arrested 6 and they were put to trial. The applicants were charged for offences punishable under Section 147, 332,/149, 294, 341/149, 353/149 and 506 Part II IPC. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the applicants. Their statement under Section 313 of CrPC were recorded in which, they pleaded false implication. No defence witness was examined.
6. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence brought before it, convicted and sentenced the applicants as aforesaid. The applicants filed appeals on different occasions and their appeals also stood dismissed.
7. Shri N.K.Malviya and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respective applicants submit that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and contrary to the evidence on records. Both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence and erroneously passed the impugned judgment. They submit that there is no evidence against the applicants and majority of the witnesses are police witnesses and their testimony cannot be relied upon. Alternatively, they submit that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicants by enhancing the fine amount. They place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Razia Khan Vs. The State of M.P. in Criminal Appeal No.2259/2023 and order passed by this Court in the case of Mahendra and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRR No.388/2013 passed on 04/04/2023. It is prayed that since the applicants are facing prosecution for a long period and there is nothing on record to suggest that they are involved in any other crime, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for the applicants and submits that the learned trial Court as well the learned appellate Court has meticulously examined the evidence brought before it and the finding recorded by the both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence. He further submits that in the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence and there is no manifest error in the impugned judgment which would require interference by this Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.
710. The law with regard to revisional jurisdiction of this Court is no longer res integra. This Court would not appreciate the evidence until and unless there is glaring perversity in the impugned judgment. However, learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence of complainant - Shyamlal Dwivedi (PW5) and other witnesses namely Constable No.389 Ajay Tirki (PW1), Constable No.390 Kripa Sindhu Tigga (PW3), Constable No.396 Santosh Banjare (PW6), Constable No.101 Ignasiyus Khalkho (PW9) and also looking to the evidence of Dr. Sunil Kumar Lakra (PW11), who has examined the injured Santosh Kumar Banjare came to a categorical finding that the applicants have committed the offence. This finding has been affirmed by the appellate Court. On perusal of the record, the findings does not appear to be perverse. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the above revisions.
11. Now the question arises for consideration is whether sentence awarded to appellant by trial Court can be reduced to period already undergone or what would be adequate sentence to be imposed in facts and circumstances of the case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP reported in (2004) 7 SCC 257 observed in paragraph 8 as under:
"8.This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words, the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of MP Vs. Ghanshyam Singh reported in (2003) 8 SCC 13 held as under:-
8"13. Criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges, in essence, affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence, sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.
14. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed.
Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.
15. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the 9 basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of Callifornia that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished."
13. While determining the quantum of punishment various factors needs to be consider. Nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided for the offence, manner of commission of offence, proportionality between crime & punishment, character of the offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any, possibility of reforms, impact of crime on society etc are some of the relevant consideration in determining the quantum of punishment. Court has to strike a balance between crime and punishment. Possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor while imposing appropriate sentence. Undue sympathy should not be given only because of long drawn pendency of criminal proceedings. In light of the above broad principles the facts of the instant case is examined.
14. In the case of Razia Khan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the offences punishable under Sections 333, 353 and 451 of IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 333 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.30,000/- within one month. For the offences punishable under Section 451 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month with fine of Rs.25,000/- within a period of one month. The sentence for offence under Section 353 of IPC was brought down by directing the appellant to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- within a period of one month.
1015. In the case of Mahendra (supra), this Court wherein the applicants remained in jail for more than 9 days allowed the appeal and sentenced to the period they had already undergone.
16. The incident had occurred on 26/11/2009. At the time of incident, accused Anwar was aged about 20 years, Quddus was aged about 45 years, Ghusuru was aged about 36 years, Nazmul was aged about 50 years, Majir was aged about 40 years and Pechki was aged about 35 years. They were granted bail by this Court and it does not appear that they misused the liberty. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that whether they have misused the liberty. Nothing adverse was brought to the notice of this Court that presence of the applicants is detrimental to the society. The possibility of their reform cannot be ruled out.
17. In view of above, considering the entire facts circumstances of the case and taking clue from the case laws stated above, the sentence imposed upon the applicants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount imposed on the applicants is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- in each count which shall be paid by the applicants within a period of 90 days from today. In default of payment of fine, R.I. of 15 days is imposed. 50% of the amount shall go to constable Santosh Banjare (PW6) and rest of the amount shall go to the State. The revisions are accordingly partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Deepti