Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bunti vs State Of H.P on 25 March, 2015
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2015
Date of Decision : March 25, 2015
.
Bunti ...Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No. 1
For the Appellant : Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. R.S. Verma, Additional
r Advocate General.
Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)
Appellant-convict Bunti, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 31.12.2012, passed by Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.10-ST/7 of 2009/6-ST/7 of 2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Bunti, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 458, 380, 394, 395, 397, 353, 332, 307, 341, 342, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 341 IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:52:57 :::HCHP
...2...
to offence, punishable under Section 342 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of `5,000/-, .
and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 458 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of `5,000/-, and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 380 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of `10,000/-, and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 394 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of `10,000/-, and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 395 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 397 IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 353 IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of one year, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 332 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:52:57 :::HCHP ...3...
`10,000/-, and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, in .
relation to offence, punishable under Section 307 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of `5,000/-, and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence, punishable under Section 120B IPC.
2. After the matter was heard for some time, under instructions, learned counsel for the appellant- accused, chose not to press the appeal on merits. However, he prayed for reduction in the sentence, so imposed by the trial Court.
3. Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, invites our attention to various documents and testimonies of the witnesses, establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, guilt of the accused. I am satisfied that the findings returned and the reasons assigned by the trial Court for convicting the accused of the charged offences.
4. With profit, I may extract the following passages on the question of sentencing from the Book:
Sentencing Law and Practice, authored by C.K. Boyle and M.J. Allen:
"A problem which frequently confronts a sentencer is that of establishing the factual basis of the offence on which to assess the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:52:57 :::HCHP ...4...
appropriate sentence. As the sentence imposed should not be more severe than the offence merits, it is important that the facts of the offence are accurately established before .
sentence is passed. Where there has been a guilty plea, the factual basis of the offence may not be apparent, or the defendant may have pleaded guilty on the basis of his own view of the offence which may not coincide with that of the prosecution. Even in cases where there has been a full trial and a conviction, the factual basis of the offence may not be clear from the evidence and the jury verdict. For example, a verdict of guilty of manslaughter on an indictment for murder, could be arrived at in one of several ways. If the judge is to pass the appropriate sentence, he must be able to arrive at some conclusion as to the facts of the offence (see, e.g. Wheeler [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1531; Hudson (1979) 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 130; Campbell [1980] Crim.L.R. 248). Similarly, where an offender is convicted of a strict liability offence, it is important to know whether he acted intentionally, recklessly, negligently or without fault (see Lester (1976) 63 Cr.App.R.
144). A body of case law is gradually building up in relation to how this factual basis may be established and what evidence may be taken into consideration in establishing it."
"Each criminal offence is characterised by typically recurring factual situations of varying degrees of gravity and, accordingly, the severity of the sentence to be imposed must reflect these degrees of wickedness (See Thomas, op.cit.,p33). Ranges of sentence appropriate to each level of gravity have been developed over the years and can be identified from the decisions of the Court of Appeal. The maximum sentence available for a particular offence is reserved for the worst from that offence (Byrne (1975) 62 Cr.App.R. 159; Smith [1976] Crim.L.R. 468). Using their experience and knowledge of the decisions of other judges and of the Court of Appeal, particularly cases where the court seeks to give guidelines (See, e.g. Mohammed (1974) 60 Cr.App.R.141;::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:52:57 :::HCHP
...5...
Taylor, Simons and Roberts [1977] 1 W.L.R. 612; Aramah (1982) 4 Cr.App.R.(S.) 407; Wood [1984] Crim.L.R.305; Clarke (1982) 4 Cr.App.R.(S.) 197), judges must first allocate .
the offence to the appropriate sentence range.
There is a normal bracket of terms of years within which the sentence for an offence is to be assessed. This bracket forms the starting point for determining the appropriate sentence.
From this starting point the final sentence will be calculated by taking into account any aggravating factors which lead to a sentence towards the upper end of the bracket. If appropriate, the court will also consider any mitigating factors which may lead to the imposition of a lesser sentence. In some circumstances the court may consider it inappropriate to give a discount for mitigating circumstances in order to achieve some other r penal objective such a deterrence, but the sentence must be proportionate to the facts of the case, and generally must not exceed that range for that type of offence."
5. I find that accused is of 28 years of age. He is He is the sole bread earner in the family. The apex Court in Modi Ram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 630, has laid down certain principles on the issue of sentencing, which read as follows:
"4. ................The accused persons found guilty may be hardened or professional criminals having taken to the life of crime since long, or they may have taken to crime only recently or may have committed the crime under the influence of bad company or again commission of a solitary offence may be due to provocative wrongful action seriously injuring the feelings and sentiments of the accused. Human nature being what it is men are at times moved by the impulse of the moment rather than by rational, cool, calculated estimate of the future good and evil. At such moments they are ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:52:57 :::HCHP ...6...
ordinarily inclined to be ready to face any future evil falling short of the inevitable. Keeping in view the broad object of punishment of criminals by Courts in all progressive civilised .
societies true dictates of justice seem to us to demand that all the attending relevant circumstances should be taken into account for determining the proper and just sentence. The sentence should bring home to the guilty party the consciousness that the offence committed by him was against his own interest as also against the interests of the society of which he happens to be a member. In considering the adequacy of the sentence which should neither be too severe nor to lenient the Court has, therefore, to keep in mind the motive and magnitude of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed and the age and character (including his antecedents) and r station in life of the offender.....................".
6. Apex Court in Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 635, also laid down following factors, though not exhaustive, to be kept in mind at the time of granting sentence to the accused: (i) Motive or previous enmity; (ii) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (iii) intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (iv) whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (v) gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
(vi) age and general health condition of the accused; (vii) whether the injury was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight; (viii) nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:52:57 :::HCHP ...7...
inflicted; (ix) criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (x) whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in .
the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (xi) number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (xii) incident occurred within the family members or close relations; and (xiii) conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment?
7. Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the accused has been convicted in a case of similar nature, vide judgment dated 27.11.2012, passed by Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No.18-ST/7 of 2009. Learned counsel for the accused, has placed on record a judgment dated 3.3.2015, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Cr. Appeal No.94 of 2013, titled as Banti v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the accused stands acquitted.
8. There is no other male member in his home to look after his family and earn livelihood. He has a long way ahead in life and we find that he has shown remorse and repentance. Also, sentence in respect of his co-accused persons stands reduced by this Court to four years, vide ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:52:57 :::HCHP ...8...
judgment dated 22.11.2012, passed in Cr. Appeal No.393 of 2010, titled as Bhagat Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, .
and other connected matters.
9. As such, the accused deserves leniency. Accordingly, sentences of rigorous imprisonment of seven years and five years, so awarded by the trial Court in relation to the offences, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years each. However, fine, as imposed by the trial Court as also the sentences imposed for a period less than four years remain unaltered. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Ordered accordingly.
Hence, with modification in the sentence part of judgment of the trial Court, the appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. Registrar (Judicial) to ensure that the record of the case is sent to the trial Court, alongwith a copy of this judgment, immediately.
( Sanjay Karol ),
March 25, 2015(sd) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:52:57 :::HCHP