Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The statement of accused Sunil @ Jony was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 3.5.2007 wherein all the incriminating evidence proved put to accused Sunil @ Jony. The accused Sunil @ Jony denied all the incriminating evidence and pleaded his innocence. The accused Sunil @ Jony stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The accused Sunil @ Jony preferred not to lead defence evidence.

9. Shri Sanjay Soni, APP for the State and Ms. Usha Rani, Advocate/Amicus Curie on behalf of the accused Sunil @ Jony heard. Record perused.

32. The Amicus Curie for the accused Sunil @ Jony argued that there is no evidence that accused Sunil @ Jony inflicted injuries by using knife ExP1 on the person of Chottu (since deceased); PW-1 to PW-3 not deposed that they actually saw accused Sunil @ Jony while inflicting injuries by using knife ExP1 on the person of Chottu (since deceased); the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of Sunil @ Jony as the person who was present at the spot and also inflicted injuries on the person of Chottu (since deceased). The Amicus Curie substantiated arguments on the basis of statement of PW1 who turned hostile and did not identify the accused Sunil @ Jony as the boy who was present at the spot at the time of incident and inflicted injuries on the person of Chottu (since deceased). The Amicus Curie argued that PW2 Babu Lal and PW3 Babloo were not the eye witnesses as as per their statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. said PWs only identified the dead body of Chottu (since deceased) and also received the dead body after post mortem vide documents ExPW2/A, ExPW2/B and ExPW3/A. The Amicus Curie argued that as the prosecution has failed to establish the identify of the accused Sunil @ Jony as such, accused Sunil @ Jony be acquitted. The Amicus Curie relied upon Vijayan V State of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 54; Puttan alias Kamal Prasad V State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 1032; Rapani Laxman V State of A.P., 2004 CRL LJ 136.

37. The prosecution to establish the identity of accused Sunil @ Jony examined PW-2 Babu Lal and PW-3 Babloo. Both PWs after being informed by PW-1 Rahul about the incident reached at the spot where they saw 3-4 boys were beating the Chottu (since deceased) with fist and leg and some of them were having knives in their hands. PW-2 and PW-3 identified the accused Sunil @ Jony as one of the boy who ran away from the spot after seeing them.

38. The Amicus Curie argued that PW-2 and PW-3 were not the eye witnesses of the incident as reflected from their respective statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.; both PWs only received the dead body of Chottu (since deceased) after the post mortem vide memos ExPW2/A, ExPW2/B and ExPW3/A.

2. Amicus Curie stated that convict is a young boy and his antecedents are clear; no any other criminal case is pending against convict Sunil @ Jony. Amicus Curie prayed for lenient view.

3. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and 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 etc.