17 June 2024


High Court of Allahabad

Md. Qamar Vs. State of U.P.




Measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence, to protect society and to deter criminal in achieving avowed object of law

Present Criminal Appeal has been filed by convict Appellant against judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge related with Case Crime under sections 376, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) convicting Appellant. The Appellant submitted that, conviction and sentences are against weight of evidence on record, prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt even then judgment of conviction and order of sentence was made therein.

In instant case, deceased, her mother and accused-Appellant were residents of the one and same village and they were fully aware to each other. Deceased was last seen in the house of the accused-Appellant by PW3 in the evening where she was picking flower planted inside house of accused-appellant where the accused-appellant was present.

When deceased did not return to home, she was vehemently searched by her mother and other family members. Dead body of the deceased was recovered in the next day morning. The deceased was a minor girl was having injury over private part in form of laceration with mixed semen and blood and injury was found on her neck. This was a murder after sexual assault with her proved by medical evidence.

First information report was instantly lodged after recovery of dead body against accused-Appellant. After registration of case crime number, the Investigating officer had rushed at the spot. Inquest proceeding was conducted, police papers were prepared, dead body was properly sealed and autopsy examination was got done. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet against the accused-Appellant, which was proved by the Investigating Officer. Incriminating evidence were put to convict appellant in statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) but no answer was given except general and blatant denial.

In present case, events, their link and chain, is complete and shows culpability of Appellant in offence and there was no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by Court below. The Court below has rightly found Appellant guilty of offences with which the Appellant was charged and prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond doubt against appellant, hence he has been rightly convicted and sentenced.

The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual case. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of Court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions persons aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law.

Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to society's cry for justice against the criminal'.

Hence, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court and in facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, punishment imposed upon the Appellant by trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant and no question arises to interfere in the matter on the point of punishment imposed upon them. Impugned judgment and order deserves to be affirmed and appeal is dismissed.

Tags : Conviction Legality Circumstantial evidence

Share :