Partly allowed

Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2018CRLA/1520/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction under IPC Sections 323, 34, 504, and 506, the court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment already undergone. The court directed the appellants to pay a fine, with a portion payable to the victim, and fixed brief default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone; fine imposed with directed payment to victim and additional default imprisonment.

Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and Another Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1520 of 2010 Appellant :- Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA. Perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 26.2.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.1, Chitrakoot in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 2005(State vs. Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and another), Police Station Rajapur,District Chitrakoot convicting Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and Nanku under Sections 323/34 IPC, 504 and 506 IPC and sentencing them to undergo six months' simple imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC, fine of Rs.1000/ under section 504 IPC and fine of Rs.1000/under section 506 IPC. In default of deposition of fine, one-one month simple imprisonment under section 504 and 506 IPC. They have been acquitted under section 341 IPC and 3(1)X SC/ST Act.

¶7

In the nutshell, according to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and Nanku alleging that on 3.11.2003 at 10 A.M. they threatened and assaulted Chhedi Lal with stick(lathi). He received six injuries but simple in nature.

¶8

The case was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against appellants. Charges were framed under Section 341, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)X SC/ST Act. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 Chhedi Lal, P.W.-2 Bholai, P.W.-3 SI Sant Ram Ahirwar, P.W.-4 Dr. Udaiveer Singh and P.W.-5 S.I. Ramesh Prasad Dubey. They have proved documentary evidence. Statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied the occurrence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Injured fell down from bicycle and received injuries.

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, impugned order was passed. Hence this appeal. P.W.-1 Chhedi Lal is injured witness. He corroborated the prosecution case.

¶10

¶11

In the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2009(6) Supreme, 526 it was held that deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident.

¶12

Further in the case of Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P., (1983) 1 SCC 218(three Judges Bench) it was held that presence of the injured witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of the incident and they should normally be not disbelieved.

¶13

Hence evidence of P.W.-1 Chhedi Lal has value and his testimony cannot be disbelieved.

¶14

On the point of conviction, Trial Court has given concurrent finding and view taken by it is plausible view. Hence no interference is called for on the point of conviction.

¶15

On the point of sentence learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident is of year 2003 and about 15 years have elapsed. They belong to poor family of rural area. They have served out about two and half months in jail during trial and at the time of judgment. In the circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them to jail and lenient view may be taken against appellants and they may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶16

Learned AGA opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old, hence a lenient view may be taken.

¶17

This Court in the case of Sukhbir and others vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 2905 of 1980 decided on 16.9.1999 and Supreme Court in Narayansingh Nathusingh vs. Natvarlal Hiralal Thakkar and another, (1981) 4 SCC 507 have reduced the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶18

In the case of Ved Ram and others vs. State of U.P., 2010(68) ACC

¶19

¶20

182 wherein appellants have already remained in jail for almost eight months and on being satisfied with the period of incarceration, the Court imposed additional fine of Rs.1000/- and altered conviction from under Section 307 IPC to under section 324/149 IPC.

¶21

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Kaisarbaig and others, (2018) 4 SCC 403 sentenced the appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has already been paid to the victim under Section 148/324/149 IPC.

¶22

The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Kalia and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1261 has held that "we would, therefore, while upholding the conviction of Raman Kalia under Section 323 I.P.C. reduce the sentence to the period already served, which we understand is about a month and a half."

¶23

Considering the economic & social status, family background and gravity of offence against this accused, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them to jail at this stage and it would be appropriate and justified to reduce sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Purpose would be served if they are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶24

The appeal is partly allowed. Appellants Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and Nanku are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees three thousand) each under Section 323/34 IPC, Rs.1000/- each under section 504 IPC and Rs.3000/- each under section 506 IPC. In default to deposit fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month, one month and three months respectively. Fine shall be deposited within two months from today before the CJM concerned, out of which Rs.5000/- shall be paid to victim Chhedi Lal, if he is alive, within one month on deposit of the same.

¶25

Office is directed to transmit copy of this order and the record of lower Court, if any, to the Court below immediately. Compliance report be submitted within three months which shall be kept on record.

¶26

Order Date :- 1.11.2018/P.P.

Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anis Vs State of U.P.

Bhoora @ Bhoore Vs State of U.P.

Mumtaj and Another Vs State of U.P.

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kori Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P.