Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Umesh Kumar, J.
Dayaram – Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. -1204 of 2014
Decided On : 15-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vinod Tripathi, Manoj Tripathi
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate
Headnote:
Electricity Act - Section 135 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304 part I - Appeal against convicted – Examination of accused - Reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate - Documentary evidence - Alleged offence except two police witnesses and Junior Engineer of Electricity department - Learned Counsel has argued that in absence of independent witnesses case of prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt impugned conviction and sentence is bad in law and is liable to be set aside thing is necessary to note that defence of the appellant has not been considered by learned Trial Judge - D.W.1 Mange Ram whose agricultural field the adjacent to the field of appellant in his statement has stated that the approval of electricity connection was given to appellant pursuant to which, he deposited - Argument of learned Counsel for appellant is that he has been falsely implicated by informant for the reason that he has not fulfilled his illegal demand from appellant - Prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt impugned conviction and sentence is bad in law and is liable to be set aside - One thing is necessary to note that the defence of the appellant has not been considered by learned Trial Judge Held, Stamping out criminal proclivity must be object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers - Law 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 necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence - reformative and corrective approach has been adopted in criminal justice administration - Learned A.G.A. has submits that there is no criminal history of the accused appellant - accused-appellant is in jail for substantial period as such he has been in jail since more than 9 months. In my opinion, every convict is entitled for the advantage of reformative and corrective jurisprudence and in view of this Court sentence is reduced by period already undergone looking to the detention of the accused-appellant in jail, no harm will be caused and purpose of justice will be served - appeal is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Umesh Kumar, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2014 passed by learned Additional & Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No. 112 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2012 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, Police Station, Mandawar district, Bijnor, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 135 of Electricity Act to undergo one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-with default stipulation; inter-alia on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is arbitrary and has been passed against the evidence on record; because the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has misread the statement of witnesses; because the appellant has been falsely implicated showing false and planted recovery; because the learned Trial Judge has passed the impugned conviction order in mechanical manner without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record; because there is no independent witness of the occurrence and the impugned sentence is too severe.
2. Brief stating the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal runs as follows;
fnukad 29-05-12 dks eSa voj vfHk;Urk jkeHktu flag] izorZu ny fctukSj e; ,l0vkbZ0 ,l0,y0oekZ] dka0 ukSfugky] dka0 n;kuUn] dka0 'kSysUnz] dka0 iznhi] ykbZueSu nsosUnz e; xkM+h e; pkyd okLrs fo|qr pksjh pSfdax gsrq dk;kZy; ls jokuk gksdj xzke 'ks[kiqjk Fkkuk {ks= eUMkoj esa i=kad 2060@fo0fo0[k.M fo0@b&1 tujy fnukad 15-5-12 ds fuLrkj.k gsrq igqaps rks xzke 'ks[kiqjk dh ubZcLrh esa yxk;s x;s fo|qr dSEi ls voj vfHk;Urk Jh gjsUnz dqekj 33@11 fo|qr midsUnz e.Mkoj fctukSj rFkk ykbZueSu egs'k dqekj dks gejkg ysdj taxy xzke 'ks[kiqjk esa n;kjke iq= pSrw fuoklh mijksDr ds [ksr esa le; djhc 13-30 cts fnu ih0Vh0MCyw0 dks pSd fd;k rks ik;k fd n;kjke mijksDr us jktsUnz flag dh ikl esa tkrh ,y0Vh0 ykbZu ls voS/k :i ls rhu dksj dkyk dsfcy Mky j[kk gS rFkk eksVj ls tksM+dj 7-5 gkLkZikoj dh eksVj pykdj [ksrksa dh flapkbZ djrk gS] ekSds ij ekStwn n;kjke mijksDr ls bl ih0Vh0MCyw0 ds dkxtkr ryc fd, rks ugha fn[kk ldk] ekSds ij voj vfHk;Urkvksa }kjk pSd dj fo|qr pksjh pSfdax fjiksVZ rS;kj dj ekSds ls tqM+s voS/k dsfcy eas ls okLrs lk{; lqfo/kkuqlkj djhc 08 ehVj rhu dksj dkyk dsfcy dVokdj lhy losZ eksgj fd;k x;kA uewuk eksgj fy;k x;k] ekSds ij ekStwn n;kjke mijksDr ls 'keu 'kqYd ds 16]000@&: tek djus dks dgk x;k rks bUrtke djus ds cgkus ekSds ls Qjkj gks x;kA mijksDr dk ;g tqeZ /kkjk 135 fo|qr vf/kfu;e dh gn dks igaprk gSAa
3. On the basis of above written information, FIR was lodged on 29.5.2012 at Case Crime No. 139 of 2012 under Section 135 of Electricity Act. The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Mehar Singh (P.W.3) who visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.Ka.3 and recovery memo (Ex.Ka.2), recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka.4). Learned Trial Judge framed charges for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act on 07.01.2013. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined P.W.1, Sunder Lal Verma, Station House Officer, Ram Bhajan, Junior Engineer (P.W.2) and I.O. Mehar Singh as P.W.3.
5. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the informant for the reason that he refused to oblige him.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, have gone through the impugned judgment and order carefully and perused the entire record.
7. Submission of learned Counsel for the appellant mainly is that in the present case, there is no independent witnesses of the alleged offence except two police witnesses and the Junior Engineer of the Electricity department. Learned Counsel has argued that in absence of independent witnesses, the case of prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence is bad in law and
