New Delhi, The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Allahabad High Court for releasing on probation two men convicted for a 2003 knife and gun attack under a section related to good conduct, saying they had gone scot-free without a single day of imprisonment due to "misplaced sympathy" despite the "brutality" of the crime.
"The circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender should be the reigning factor in deciding as to whether it is expedient to release the accused on the premise of good conduct; which in the facts of this case is lacking," a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said.
The apex court set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, failing which the Additional Sessions Court, Bahraich, will take immediate proceedings to apprehend them.
The case arose out of business rivalry where the complainant opened a shop near the shop of the accused in Bahraich district of Uttar Pradesh. On the day of the incident, the accused, armed with a cutting weapon, and the second accused, armed with a gun, brutally attacked the victim, inflicting severe injuries that caused him to faint before he was rushed to Bahraich Hospital.
The top court faulted the manner in which the High Court invoked Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as the accused was a first offender, without taking into account the "brutality of the crime and the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim".
The bench said it was unable to comprehend as to why the High Court observed that the accused were suffering for 22 years since the accused were on bail and merrily indulging in criminal activities.
"We cannot but, with an amount of consternation, notice the casual manner in which both the Trial Court and the High Court considered the issue from the stage of taking cognisance till the release of the accused on application of the PoO Act.
"The accused have gone scot-free without suffering a single day of imprisonment, especially by reason of the misplaced sympathy based on grandiose expositions of law, totally inapplicable to the facts of the case. Section 4 of the PoO Act does not permit its invocation when it is found that the accused is a first offender," the bench said.
The top court said the victim in the ensuing years was, day-in and day-out, suffering the debilitating effects of the attack.
"The circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, should be the reigning factor in deciding as to whether it is expedient to release the accused on the premise of good conduct; which in the facts of this case is lacking.
"The brutality of the crime and the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim ought to have persuaded the Court to draw an adverse inference on the aspect of 'nature of offence'," the bench said.
The top court also criticised the trial court for framing a charge under Section 308 of the IPC instead of Section 307 of the IPC .
"The criminal appeals shall stand restored before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow. We request the High Court to take up the appeal only after ensuring that the accused are taken into custody and then only the appeal be heard," the bench said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.