"No Accused Is Incapable Of Being Reformed": Allahabad HC Modifies Sentence From Life Term To 10 Yr In S. 304 Part 1 IPC Conviction Case

"...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," the Allahabad High Court recently observed as it modified the sentence of an accused convicted under Section 304 Part 1 IPC.

The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi further stressed that undue harshness should be avoided while sentencing keeping in view the reformative approach underlying our criminal justice system.

The case in brief

The bench was hearing an appeal moved one Babu, who was convicted under Section 304(i) read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4/25 Arms by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Badaun in Mya 2013.

The convict/appellant, along with co-accused Munna, was found guilty of killing Rani (deceased). As per the case of the prosecution, on April 20, 2010, the complainant (Kamlesh) was returning home with her mother Rani (deceased) after purchasing the vegetables.

Both the accused came from behind and Babu put his hand on the shoulder of her mother, her mother gave a jerk and moved ahead, which annoyed Babu and he drove out a knife from his clothes and stabbed her mother in the abdomen. Both the accused ran away. Rani died later on.

Before the Court after some arguments, the counsel for the appellant submitted that he was not pressing this appeal on its merit, but he prayed only for a reduction of the sentence.

He submitted that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the trial court was very harsh. He also submitted that the appellant is in jail for the past more than 9 years.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that nothing had come out, which could give any benefit to the appellant. The Court noted that the knife, used in the commission of the crime, was recovered by the investigating officer on the pointing out of the accused-appellant Babu.

The Court further noted that the Medical evidence also shows that injury No.2 in ante mortem injuries, mentioned in post mortem report, is the injury that could be inflicted by a weapon like a knife. Hence, the Court observed that the ocular version of eye-witness PW2 was corroborated by medical evidence also.

Consequently, while coming to the conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator of the offence, the Court considered the question as to whether the sentence of life imprisonment and fine was adequate or the sentence was required to be modified.

The Court took into account the rulings of the Apex Court to state that while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of crime on society as a whole and rule of law needs to be balanced.

Further stressing that the judicial trend in the country has been towards striking a balance between reform and punishment, the Court remarked thus:

"The protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers. 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. At the same time, undue harshness should also be avoided keeping in view the reformative approach underlying in our criminal justice system."

Further, the Court also noted that in the instant case, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court for a life term was very harsh keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of offence.

Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant Babu by the trial court was modified as a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

Case title - Babu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2878 of 2013]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 365

Click Here To Read/Download Order