Raj Kumar & ANR. v. State Of Haryana
!
!
" CRA-S-3405-SB-2011 RAJ KUMAR & ANOTHER
STATE OF HARYANA
CRA-S-128-SB-2012 MANGAL
STATE OF HARYANA
# $%# &' & ( )))))
!" # $ %&' ( ))))) ' & (* + ,-.
* # + ,+!
-./-//
-0/-//
1(
/ #
2+ #
1 # 34 5 06 /7-8-/- #
+
89 86 / /-* 8 # :/97- #
;+ # 1# # 1(
!! ,+!
'
## (
<
!:8-.*-// *# (
! #
# +
1 # #
5 %=/>.9 ;+ # !(1( #! # /.-8-/- * #!# 1"
# # * #
1 # 1+ 98- ! 1+ 88-?-- ! ! #
#
! # # ;+ #
! #!
# + * 1
+# @
#
+! AA # " # 1 1+ 1( !
! #!
# ##
+
" #!
#
#
#
#
"
# " #
# #
# #! # (# # $ # #
#+
+
# #!
#
" ( # +
/---? # # #
# !1# 1 # 5-667988978/ # @
" #
! + "# !2
# ;+ # A + *(
#
!
# # ! #
3.
Upon completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the appellants and others before the competent Court. Copies of the
/8 documents were supplied to the appellants as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4.
On finding a prima facie case against the appellants, charges were framed vide order dated 12.08.2010 u/s 120-B, 328, 392 and Raj Kumar was also charged under Section 412 , IPC to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5.
On completion of procedural compliances, parties led their respective evidence. Prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and evidence was thereafter closed 6.
The entire evidence was put to appellants and statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C were recorded. The appellants denied the same. However, no defence evidence was led.
7.
On consideration of evidence and hearing the arguments, the appellants were convicted under Sections 328, 392 and 120-B, IPC vide judgment of conviction dated 5.12.2011 and order of sentence dated 7.12.2011. Hence, the present appeal 9 +
+1!#
,+!
!#
# (
+!
( C+
+!
'
1( :+ # /.-/-/8 /9-6-/
( '
34 #
#
# -/- /7(
@
(
#!# # !
/7( ( #!#
:+
+
( +
+
/
( !
- ( -/ !
. (
, ;+! (+
+
( -( -6!
# +
!#
1 ! 6
#
+1!#
1
+
+(
1# +#
+
# 1
#
1+ +# # +
!!#
1(
#+
+ #!
#
@
+1!#
#
(#
+ # # ( + !# !#
#!# ,+
'
# #!
C+
+ !
1#!
+
+ ! #
+1#
#
# + /- 4
# +
// #
# + ,+!
!#
##
+ 1# #
@ #
(
#
#
+
C+
+! + !
/ ,+ 1
' B1 +! :+
"# + 2+
;#
4( 1 + 6
/.
! "
"
# $
%
&
& ! 13.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.
/ @ !
+ #!
# 1
/7 + ! "#
#A
C+
#! !!#
1( #!
#
#!
#
1# @ !1(#
1# :+ < (
!# #!
@ #
# # ( 1 1
#!
# ( #
!#
#! #!!#
1 < !# /.
1,
+ !
!( 1+ !
!
! 1##
! !+
! #1+ #
# ( /7 @
# # ( #
,+
+
!
+ #1+ 4
,+ "
!
+!
+ #
1+ !" # # # #+ #
#
# # 1
/0
!# #
# +!
#
+ 1(
#
1#
+ # + (
( #!# # # /7 ( * #
( +
+
( !
-( -/!
. (
,;+!
(+
+
( -( -6!
(+
+
( !
-( @ !
#
# +# (
/0
#!
# 1 # @ ( !
( /9 @ + :+ #
#
!# #
# +!
<#
! #
!#
+ 1 +# # +!
/6 @ "# #
#
# + 1(
4 !# # 3,-4 --5 6 33-$ # ! #
,+!
# !# # @
1( #
2+ # # -0/-//# !# # + # (+ - # !#
+ #
E # ( # +' & (. # * !
" '
$ "# ?
> ?5 $ 1 > ?5