Pages

Jul 14, 2010

Santosh Kumar Baranwal Vs. State of UP, 2009

Allahabad High Court observed, “It is settled that the evidence of a prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected in totality merely because they have turned hostile or the prosecution has chosen to treat them as hostile and cross-examined them. Their evidence is neither effaced nor washed off from the record. It can be accepted to the extent their testimony is found dependable………There is no direct evidence of any motive. It can only be inferred from the circumstances…….In case anyone in society is depressed or frustrated, then it also reflects upon the society that he lives in. It is the duty of the State to see that such conditions do not exist. The State also has some accountability in this regard……Is it obligatory to impose fine under section 302 IPC or is it discretionary? Fine is Discretionary…….the words 'shall also liable to fine' in section 302 IPC merely empower the court to impose the fine but does not mandate it. To impose or not to impose is in the discretion of the Court. There is another reason for holding that there is discretion to sentence fine. Section 302 IPC neither prescribes upper limit nor prescribes lower limit. In view of section 63 of the IPC the upper limit is unlimited but it cannot be excessive, it depends on the fact of each case. There is no mention of lower limit of fine under section 302 IPC. It also means that the court may choose to impose nil fine that is no fine at all.”
Hon’ble Court also laid down the guideline for compensation u/s 357 CrPC, “The pecuniary circumstances, means, and capacity of the offender to pay the fine;
The cases where offender has enriched himself.
No one should be permitted to live on the wealth that is gained unconsciously or unjustifiably.
Economic offences are generally visited with heavy fines;
Character and magnitude of the offence; Motive for the offence;
The pecuniary gain likely to have been made by the offender.”

No comments:

Post a Comment