In case of Babu v. State of U.P. The Allahabad High Court was deliberating over an appeal filed by Babu, who had been found guilty by the Court of Additional Session Judge in Badaun in May 2013 under Section 304(i) read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4/25 of Arms Act.
The defendant/appellant was convicted of killing Rani along with co-defendant Munna (deceased). According to the prosecution's case, the complainant (Kamlesh) was traveling home with her mother Rani (dead) on April 20, 2010, after buying vegetables.
Both the accused approached from behind, and when Babu put his hand on her mother's shoulder, she jerked and went forward. This enraged Babu, and he pulled a knife from his trousers and stabbed her in the belly. Both accused individuals fled from the spot. Rani later succumbed to the injuries.
After some deliberation before the Court, the appellant's attorney stated that he was not pursuing this appeal on the basis of its merits and that his sole request was for the sentence to be reduced.
He claimed that the trial court's life sentence for the appellant was excessively severe. Additionally, he claimed that the appellant had been imprisoned for over nine years.
The Court made the initial observation that nothing had surfaced that may be of any use to the appellant. The Court noted that the investigating officer found the knife used in the crime after being pointed out by the accused-appellant Babu.
The Medical evidence further indicates that Injury No. 2 in the Ante Mortem Injuries, as described in the Postmortem Report, is the Injury that might be caused by a Weapon like a Knife, the Court further remarked. The Court noted that medical evidence also supported the ocular version of eyewitness PW2's testimony.
In light of the Court's determination that the accused committed the crime, it was decided to consider whether the life sentence and fine were appropriate or whether a different punishment was necessary.
The Court took the decisions of the Apex Court into consideration while stating that when weighing the application of just punishment, the effects of crime on society at large and the rule of law need to be weighed.
The Court further emphasized that, given all of the relevant facts and circumstances, as well as the seriousness of the offense, the learned trial court's sentence of a life term in the present case was very harsh.
As a result, the trial court's original sentence of 10 years of strict imprisonment under Sections 304 Part I and 34 of the IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000 was changed to apply to the appellant Babu and court noted that "The protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as 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 therefore necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentences. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. At the same time, undue harshness should also be avoided keeping in view the reformative approach underlying in our criminal justice system."