State v. Munesh Pal

1. The present appeal under Section 377 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973, has been instituted on behalf of the appellant, praying as follows:- “In these facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a. Partially modify the impugned order on sentence dated 9.3.22 passed by the Learned Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Principal District and Sessions Judge North West District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in SC No.162/18 titled as 'State v. Munesh Pal' in FIR No. 1249/2017, dated 24.11.2017 lodged at Police Station: Aman Vihar under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act to the extent of non-compliance of the mandatory directions passed by this Hon'ble Court in Karan v. State, Crl. A. 352/2020 Karan v. State NCT of Delhi dated 27.11.2020.; and, b. pass such other or further orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that, the present appeal has been instituted on behalf of the State, assailing the order on sentence dated 09.03.2022, passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, North West District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in SC NO. 162/2018, titled „State vs. Munesh Pal’, whereby the learned trial court has declined their prayer seeking reimbursement of Rs.10,810/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Ten Only), assertedly incurred by them in conducting the subject proceedings.

3. Mr. Laksh Khanna, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, invites our attention to the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of „Karan vs State’ (Crl.A. 352/2020, decided on 27.11.2020), and in particular, the paragraph No. 174, to urge that the learned trial court ought to have directed Munesh Pal, the respondent/convict to reimburse the sum of Rs.10,810/-, expended by the State in prosecuting the convict, before the learned trial court. The relevant portion of the ratio is extracted herein below for the sake of completeness:-

concerned, SHO concerned and / or prosecution who shall provide the necessary assistance upon being requested.

177. The Trial Court shall thereafter consider the Victim Impact Report of the DSLSA with respect to the impact of crime on the victims, paying capacity of the accused and expenditure incurred on the prosecution; and after hearing the parties including the victims of crime, the Court shall award the compensation to the victim (s) and cost of prosecution to the State; if the accused has the capacity to pay the same. The Court shall direct the accused to deposit the compensation with DSLSA whereupon DSLSA shall disburse the amount to the victims according to their Scheme."

4. Furthermore, in all fairness, Mr. Laksh Khanna, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, has also invited our attention to the findings arrived at by the learned trial court qua their claim seeking reimbursement of expenses and the directions issued by the learned trial court vide order dated 09.03.2023, which is reproduced herein below for the sake of completeness:-

reflected in the victim impact report. The victim has sustained injuries who needs to be compensated.

7. The report from the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail No.8 and 9, Tihar, New Delhi shows that convict was admitted to jail on 25.11.2017 and released on 05.05.2018.

8. Hence, keeping in view all these facts, convict Munesh Pal is sentenced to undergo RI for three years u/s 307 IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is granted to the convict.

9. The convict is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Victim / complainant Govind and in default of payment of compensation, the convict shall undergo SI for 2 months in addition to the sentence mentioned above.

10. Fine and compensation paid in the courtroom. Notice be issued to the victim / complainant in order to release the compensation."

6. On a conspectus of the decision of Karan (supra) extracted herein above, read in conjunction with the directions issued by the learned trial court vide order dated 09.03.2023, we are axiomatically of the considered view that the learned trial court while adjudicating on the amount of expenditure incurred by the prosecution, has to consider and rely upon the victim impact report of the DSLSA and after hearing both the parties shall award the compensation to the victim and the cost of prosecution to the State.

7. Hence, keeping in view the facts of the present case, it clearly and unequivocally leads to one inescapable conclusion, that the convict belongs to socially and economically under-privileged section of the society and is barely able to meet out the livelihood as an auto driver for himself and his immediate family.