Saeed -Uz -Zaman Siddiqi, J. - (1.) ACCUSED -appellants Ram Pyare, Devi Gulam, Kashi Nath Pathak, Kishan Swaroop have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.2.2001 by which the accused Kashi Nath Pathak has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused Ram Pyare, Devi Gulam and Kishan Swaroop have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the accused -appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 504, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. All the accused -appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the accused applicants have been convicted under Section 3 (1) (x), S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and Rs. 500 as fine. During the pendency of the appeal, accused Devi Gulam had died and a report to this effect has been received by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao and, as such, the conviction as well as appeal inasmuch as it relate to accused Devi Gulam stood abated. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.6.1992 at about 3.00 p.m., the accused -appellants reached at the door of Lalta Prasad and abused him on the ground that he stood as witness in another case filed against the accused and directed him to file affidavit in their support. An altercation took place. The accused -appellants hurled abuses, threatened to kill and slapped him. The F.I.R. was lodged at the Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District -Unnao and the case was registered under Crime No. 204/1992. The injured was examined at P.H.C., Fatehpur Chaurasi. After investigation, the charge -sheet was submitted. The learned trial court famed charges against the accused on 6.12.1994 to which they denied and claimed trial. The prosecution examined Lalta Prasad as P.W. 1, Ram Bhajan as P.W. 2, Shiv Kant as P.W. 3 and Constable Surendra Pal Singh as P.W. 4. There is documentary evidence as well. The defence did not lead any evidence. After conclusion of the prosecution witnesses, the accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., who filed three documents and did not examine any witness. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has got success in proving the guilt against the accused -appellants and they were convicted and sentenced.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. and have gone through the records. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly convicted the accused -appellants, but submitted that the punishment of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused -appellants and, in lieu of it, the appellants may be awarded enhanced punishment of fine.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has awarded maximum punishment of sentence provided under the law for the offence punishable under Section 323. I.P.C. Though the circumstances did not warrant such extreme penalty. The evidence relate to slapping two to three times. There is no injury report. Similarly, the learned trial court has awarded inordinate punishment for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. Though he has awarded a fine of Rs. 500 to each of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x), S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act yet he has not directed that any percentage on the amount of fine should be paid to the victim, who belongs to weaker section of the society. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has overlooked the fact that grant of compensation, out of any amount of fine would have strengthened the rural social fabric. The imposition of punishment has been awarded in a mechanical manner which was not expected from an activist Judge. A sleeping or dormant Judge cannot satisfy the demands of the society. Mere award of sentence or acquittal is not according to the expectations of the society. The people, by and large, expect justice from a Court of law, may it be a civil court or criminal court or any other Court.;