Partly allowed

Radhey and Ors. v. State

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2018CRLR/1098/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction and sentence for assaulting an injured person, the court upheld the conviction against two petitioners due to concurrent findings but reduced their sentences to the time already served, imposing fines instead of imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs. 3,000 imposed on Vikram; fines of Rs. 1,000 each on Trimohan and Radhey.

Radhey and Ors. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1098 of 1993 Revisionist :- Radhey & Ors. Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- N.K. Rastogi,P.K.Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

1- Learned counsel for the revisionists is permitted to implead Trimohan as revisionist no.2 in the array of the party during the course of the day.

¶4

2- This criminal revision has been preferred by revisionists-Radhey, Trimohan and Vikram against the order dated 17.8.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993 (Gopal and others Vs. State of U.P.) against the order of conviction passed by IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Criminal Case No. 210 of 1991, (State Vs. Gopal and others), under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Swar, District Rampur confirming the conviction of all the accused and reducing the sentence under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. of revisionist no. 3 from six months to three months rigorous imprisonment and revisionists no. 1 and 2 from three months to one month rigorous imprisonment.

¶5

3-During pendency of revision, revisionist no.1-Radhey died and the case against him stands abated.

¶6

4- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist no. 2-Trimohan and revisionist no. 3-Vikram and Sri C.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

5- According to prosecution case, one F.I.R. was lodged on 5.6.1989 at 11-00 a.m. against Gopal, Radhey, Trilmohan and Vikram under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Swar, District Rampur alleging that the incident took place in the field of Rajendra Kumar in which all accused assaulted to Rajendra Kumar with kicks and fists and Vikram assaulted by knife and Gopal by bricks.

¶8

6- After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and charges were framed.

¶9

7- Prosecution examined P.W.1 injured Rajendra Kumar, P.W.2 Hardev eye witness, P.W.3 Dr.A.P. Ansari and P.W.4 Constable Rajaram. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing both the parties, Gopal was acquitted and Radhey, Trimohan and Vikram was convicted and sentenced under Section 323 I.P.C. for three months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324 I.P.C. for six months rigorous imprisonment. Against this judgment, Criminal Appeal no. 17 of 1993 was filed that was allowed in part and sentence under Section 323 I.P.C. was reduced. Gopal was acquitted and Vikram was convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. Radhey and Trimohan were convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment and Vikram was sentenced to three months R.I. Hence this revision.

¶10

8- On the point of conviction, trial court as well as appellate court have given concurrent findings on the point of conviction against Trimohan and Vikram. From perusal of the record, it appears that findings given by both the courts on the point of conviction have no illegality or infirmity or perverse. Hence, on the point of conviction, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

9- On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the age of Trimohan is 70 years and the age of Vikram is above 60 years. The incident is of the year 1987; 29 years have been elapsed and both the revisionists belong to rural areas, they are poor persons, they are dependents on their family members and long time has been spent, hence no useful purpose would be served in sending them to jail.

¶12

10- Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old and the revisionist is also old person, hence a lenient view may be taken.

¶13

11- Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶14

1-Mushtaq and others Vs. State of U.P. [UP CrR 2004 (II)] page 60.

¶15

2-Dasha Mani Shukla & another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2000 (2) JIC 970 (All).

¶16

3- Dannoo and another Vs. State of U.P. 1999 (1) JIC 851 (All).

¶17

12- Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that in paragraph-4 this Court in the case of Dannoo and another (supra) , has held that accused-revisionist has not challenged the conviction of of this accused-revisionist for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 I.P.C. He has made submissions only on the question of sentence. He has pointed out that the occurrence related to the year 1974 and the accused-revisionist was coming down on bail from the month of June, 1984 uptil now. He has further pointed out from the record of this revision that this accused revisionist had surrendered in court on 31.5.1984 in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 14.5.1984 of the Additional Sessions Judge and that this court had passed the bail order in his favour only on 13.6.1984 and that the matter having related to Kanpur Dehat, it would have taken a view more days for obtaining the actual release of the accused-revisionist from jail after furnishing bonds before the Magistrate concerned there. In short, the argument is that he has already suffered R.I. in jail for a period of atleast a fortnight. He has further argued that sending the accused revisionist back to jail now after such a long gap of time would do more harm than good. He has prayed that the sentence of imprisonment in the case of each offence may be reduced to the period already undergone. This prayer may be accepted to the extent that in view of the reduction in the sentence of imprisonment, suitable amount of fine may be imposed and time may be granted to pay the same.

¶18

13- The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Kalia

¶19

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.

¶20

14- Considering the circumstances of the case, looking to age of the revisionists, who are belonging to rural areas and social and economic status of the revisionists, who and are dependents on their family members, end of justice will be served if the revisionist- Vikram be punished for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. for imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.3000/and if the revisionist-Trimohan be punished for the offence under Sections 323 I.P.C. for imprisonment already undergone with a fine of Rs.1000/-.

¶21

15- The revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.8.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Rampur is set aside and the revisionist Vikram is sentenced to the period already undergone under Section 324 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.3000/- and Trimohan and Radhey are sentenced to the period already undergone under Section 323/34 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.1000/-each respectively.

¶22

16- The revisionists shall deposit the fine within a period of two months.

¶23

17- Office is directed to send the copy of this order along with lower court record to the court concerned immediately for compliance. Compliance report be submitted within three months, which shall be kept on record.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.8.2018/OP

Radhey and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Manju Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Rajput Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Chuhi Alias Uma Alias Huma Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Alias Bobby Vs State of U.P.