9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re directed to be concurrent. 3. The facts as has been exposited are that on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the informant, Aarif Hussain, PW-10, at 11.50 P.M. on 16.4.2008 alleging that about 10.00 P.M. when he was going towards Telibandha P.S., the accused persons met him near Telibandha chowk and demanded Rs. 500/- for liquor and on his refusal they took him towards Awanti Vihar railway crossing in an auto rickshaw and assaulted him, Crime Case No. 129/2008 was registered under Sections 327, 366 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the concerned police station. After the criminal law was set in motion, said Aarif Hussain was medically examined by Dr. Vishwanath Ram Bhagat, PW-1, and as per the injury report, Exhbt. P-1, he had sustained four injuries on his person. The investigating officer, after completing the investigation, placed the charge sheet on 6.8.2008 against the accused persons for offences punishable Under Sections 147, 327, 364-A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned trial Magistrate who committed the matter to the court of Sessions. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, considering the material on record, framed cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rigorous imprisonment to one year from three years. As a consequence of the reduction in sentence, all the accused-Appellants barring Appellant No. 3 therein were sent to custody to suffer the remaining part of the sentence imposed on them. Being dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5. 12. We have heard Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. C.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent State. 13. Questioning the legal substantiality of the decision passed by the learned single Judge, it is contended by Mr. Sreekumar that the conviction Under Section 327 is not sustainable inasmuch as no charge was framed Under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. It is his further submission that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; and had the evidence been appreciated in an apposite manner, the conviction could not have been sustained. Alternatively, it is argued that in any case, there could have been a conviction only Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and for the said offence, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment is absolutely disproportionate and exces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter 21 A dealing with plea bargaining Under Sections 265A and 265L by Act 2 of 2006, the concept of plea bargaining was not envisaged under the Code. In Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 747, the accused pleaded guilty and was eventually convicted by the learned Magistrate Under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards fine. He did not avail the opportunity to defend himself. On an appeal preferred by the State, the High Court found him guilty maintaining the sentence of fine and additionally imposed a substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. A three-Judge Bench of this Court took note of the fact that it was a case of plea bargaining and observed that had the accused known that he would not be let off with a mere sentence of fine but would be imprisoned, he would not have pleaded guilty. In that context, this Court observed as follows: It would be clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution to induce or lead an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance that he would be let off lightly and then in appeal or revision, to enhance the sentence. of course when we say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icy under the criminal justice system. After referring to the decisions in Madanlal Ramchandra Daga v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1267, Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 3 SCC 684, Ganeshmal Jashraj v. Govt. of Gujarat (1980) 1 SCC 363 and Thippaswamy (supra), a two-Judge Bench ruled thus: It is settled law that on the basis of plea bargaining the court cannot dispose of the criminal cases. The Court has to decide it on merits. If the accused confesses his guilt, an appropriate sentence is required to be imposed. Further, the approach of the court in appeal or revisions should be to find out whether the accused is guilty or not on the basis of the evidence on record. If he is guilty, an appropriate sentence is required to be imposed or maintained. If the Appellant or his counsel submits that he is not challenging the order of conviction, as there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime, then also the court's conscience must be satisfied before passing the final order that the said concession is based on the evidence on record. In such cases, sentence commensurating with the crime committed by the accused is required to be im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case. That apart, a counsel is expected to assist the Courts in reaching a correct conclusion. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Court to decide the appeal on merits and not accept the concession and proceed to deal with the sentence, for the said mode and method defeats the fundamental purpose of the justice delivery system. We are compelled to note here that we have come across many cases where the High Courts, after recording the non-challenge to the conviction, have proceeded to dwell upon the proportionality of the quantum of sentence. We may clearly state that the same being impermissible in law should not be taken resort to. It should be borne in mind that a convict who has been imposed substantive sentence is deprived of his liberty, the stem of life that should not ordinarily be stenosed, and hence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the cause of justice is subserved with serenity in accordance with the established principles of law. 22. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the appeal is remitted to the High Court to be decided on merits in accordance with law. As the Appellants were on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
