This judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Patna details the appeal of Vicky Kumar against his conviction and sentencing by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-XII, Muzaffarpur. The original case, Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 497/2015, found Vicky Kumar guilty under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 506 (criminal intimidation), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her
Vicky Kumar, the appellant, was represented by Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur. The State of Bihar was represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma. The informant in the case was represented by Advocate Mr. Purushottam Sharma. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Honourable Mr. Justice Nani Tagia. The oral judgment was delivered on December 2, 2023.
The core issue before the High Court was to examine the validity and legality of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented, the High Court delivered a nuanced judgment, partially allowing the appeal.
The High Court specifically addressed the convictions under each section of the IPC. Regarding Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 307 (attempt to murder), the Division Bench found the conviction to be unjustified due to a lack of sufficient evidence connecting the appellant to these specific charges with the required intent and certainty. The judgment highlights a "paucity of evidence in that connection," indicating that the prosecution failed to convincingly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Vicky Kumar committed these offenses.
However, the High Court upheld the conviction of Vicky Kumar under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means),
Having upheld the conviction under these three sections, the Court then turned its attention to the quantum of the sentence. This is a crucial aspect of the judgment where the High Court exercised its appellate powers to modify the punishment awarded by the Trial Court.
The judgment explicitly mentions considering "the age of the appellant at the time of the occurrence and the circumstance which do not reflect the exact intention of the appellant especially of his intention of killing the victim."
Firstly, the appellant's age at the time of the incident was taken into account. This suggests that the Court considered the possibility of immaturity or a lack of fully formed intent that might be associated with youth, although the specific age is not mentioned in the provided snippets.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the Court noted that the circumstances of the case did not definitively prove the appellant's intention to kill the victim. While grievous hurt was inflicted, the evidence, in the High Court's assessment, fell short of establishing the specific intent required for a charge as serious as attempted murder. This distinction between causing grievous hurt and intending to cause death is a critical legal principle.
Based on these considerations, the Division Bench deemed it "appropriate to alter the sentence to one for the period of custody, which he has already undergone." This is a significant modification of the original sentence. Instead of serving a life sentence, Vicky Kumar's punishment was effectively reduced to the time he had already spent in jail.
The judgment further clarifies that "the appellant shall, however, be required to pay the fine imposed upon him under all the counts." This means that while the term of imprisonment was reduced, the monetary penalty of ₹10,000 remained in effect.
Crucially, the judgment notes, "We have been informed that the appellant is in jail since the date of his arrest and thus has served for more than eight years."
Finally, the operative part of the judgment states, "The appellant is directed to be released from jail forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case." This order mandates the immediate release of Vicky Kumar from custody, contingent upon him not being wanted in any other legal proceedings.
The concluding remarks of the judgment direct that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for record and compliance, and that the records of the case be returned to the concerned Trial Court.
In essence, this case highlights the appellate process in the Indian judicial system, where a higher court reviews the decisions of a lower court. The Patna High Court, in this instance, meticulously re-evaluated the evidence presented in the Trial Court. While it upheld the conviction for causing hurt, grievous hurt, and criminal intimidation, it overturned the conviction for attempted murder and outraging the modesty of a woman due to insufficient evidence. Furthermore, the Court exercised its discretion in sentencing, reducing the life imprisonment to the period already served, considering the appellant's age at the time of the incident and the lack of conclusive proof of intent to kill. The retention of the fine underscores that while the severity of the imprisonment was mitigated, the appellant was still held accountable for the offenses for which his conviction was sustained. This judgment demonstrates the judiciary's role in ensuring a fair and just outcome based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the specific circumstances of the case.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM2MjYjMjAyMiMxI04=-uJzdUY0UqTU=
0 Comments