The rehabilitative and reformative aspects in sentencing, the principle of proportionality, and the need to balance reform and punishment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This revision has been preferred by the revisionist under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2004 passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Sultanpur in Session Trial No. 192 of 2002: State Vs Raja Ram, whereby the respondent no. -2 was convicted under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. instead of Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced for five years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the court below did not appreciate the evidence on record. He further submits that prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused/opposite party No.2 on the basis of evidence. The judgement was passed without considering the statement of witnesses and the case was set up by the prosecution upon surmises and conjectures.

4. Learned A.G.A. submits that there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below, therefore, this revision may be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the ground as well as the learned A.G.A. and gone through the judgment passed by the court below.

6. In the present case from the statements given by the witnesses/evidence produced by the prosecution, the court below after going through the material placed on record, has given its finding that the opposite party No.2 has not committed offence under Section 302 I.P.C. rather the court below has framed charges under Section 304 (II) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. Thus, it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish that the crime/offence under Section 302 I.P.C. has been committed by the accused/opposite party No.2 and there was no direct evidence produced by the prosecution regarding involvement of the opposite party No.2 in the crime/offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

7. Further, learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed in favor of opposite parties which is before this Court.

8. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, [AIR 1977 SC 1926], had observed the rehabilitary & reformative aspects in sentencing :

"Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to ante-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries."

9. It is also noteworthy that while determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the 'principle of proportionality'. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. The sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low as observed in case of Deo Narain Mandal Vs State of U.P. [(2004) 7 SCC 257]

10. Further in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP [(