The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the reformative theory of punishment and the doctrine of proportionality in sentencing, emphasizing the need to avoid undue harshness and consider the impact of the crime on the society as a whole.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamta Prasad for the accused appellant-Gaya Prasad Tiwari and Sri Kameshwar Singh for Mukundi Singh. Sri Vikas Goswami and Sri N.K. Srivastava for the State.

2. By way of these appeals, the appellants-Gaya Prasad Tiwari and Mukundi Singh have challenged the judgment and order dated 22.12.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Hamirpur in Case Crime No. 572/2008, S.T. No. 234/2008, State vs. Gaya Prasad Tiwari and Another whereby appellants were convicted under Section 304 (1) read with Section 34 and awarded sentence of life imprisonment under Section 304 (1) read with Section 34 IPC coupled with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, appellants would undergo one year additional sentence.

3. The appellant-Mukundi Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court and during the trial also he was on bail. Gaya Prasad Tiwari is in jail for more than 14 years.

4. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record and proceedings and the F.I.R. are that a first information report was lodged by one Krishna Kumar Diwedi on 9.4.2008 at 7:30 a.m. against appellants being registered as Case Crime No. 572 of 2008 for commission of offence under Section 304 IPC with regard to the incident dated 8.4.2008 at 11:30 p.m.

5. S.I. Siya Ram took up the investigation and kept investigation into motion. The Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded statements of the eye witness and witnesses and after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against both the accused.

6. The matter being triable by court of sessions the learned Magistrate committed the case to court of sessions.

7. The learned trial court summoned the accused and framed charge under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC, which was read over to the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution so as to bring home the charge, examined 5 witnesses, who are as under:

9. The following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading evidence:

10. After completion of prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not examine any witness in defence.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the punishment is too harsh as there was a single blow which caused injury to deceased. The parties are inter related. There was no premeditated action so as to do away with the deceased. There was an altercation, it is the say of the prosecution witness that Gaya Prasad Tiwari went in home and brought a sharp edged weapon from the house and inflicted the blow to the deceased. The witnesses also have in their occular version opined that had proper treatment being made available to the deceased in time, the deceased would have survived. The role assigned to Mukundi Singh was to see that the deceased fell to ground from the motorcycle he was driving. Learned Counsel has relied on the following judgments:

(i) Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2017 Law Suit (SC) 374

(ii) Atul Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (0) Supreme (SC) 46

(iii) Ramroop vs. State of U.P. Jail Appeal No. 4722 of 2015, dated 22.11.2021

So as to contend that the accused have been falsely implicated and in alternative there was no premeditated action whereby the trial court convicted the accused with aid of secti