Partly allowed

Badlu and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2018CRLR/1298/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding an assault case, the High Court reviewed the conviction and sentence. Finding the lower courts' conviction correct, the Court allowed the revision on sentencing grounds due to the petitioner's old age and injuries sustained during the incident, substituting the original sentence with a heavy fine and conditional imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments and orders are set aside. The revisionist is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 323 IPC and Rs. 5000/- under Section 325 IPC. De

Badlu and Another Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 27.8.2018 Delivered on 30.8.2018

¶3

Court No. - 41

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1298 of 1991

¶5

Revisionist :- Badlu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- J N Chaturvedi,Mazhar Ullah,Syed Fahim Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Mayank Mishra, Brief Holder appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist Sabir against order dated 20.9.1991 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1991 (Badlu and another vs. State of U.P) whereby the appeal was dismissed and order dated 08.4.1991 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Rampur in Case No. 280 of 1990 by which the learned Magistrate convicted the revisionists under sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC sentencing them for 6 months R.I. and one year R.I. respectively. Both the sentences shall run concurrently, was confirmed.

¶9

Ground of revision are that impugned order is against fact and law and has been passed without consideration of evidence on record.

¶10

In brief, facts of the case are that the First Information Report was lodged against the accused-revisionist Badlu and Sabir in Crime No. 280 of 1990 under sections 323/34, 325/34, 504 IPC alleging that on 12.3.1988 at 8.30 (Morning) they assaulted to Islam Husain, Sabbir and

¶11

¶12

Shahidan by lathi and danda. Sabbir received four injuries. Shahidan received two injuries and fracture was found on the head of Sabbir except one injury, all other injuries are found simple in nature.

¶13

After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses namely P.W.-1 Islam Husain, P.W.-2 Sabir Ahmad alias Chutail, P.W.-3 Dr. R.B. Jaiswal, P.W.-4 S.I. P.C. Varma, P.W.-5 G.K. Jain, P.W.-6 Constable Puran Singh and the statement of accused-revisionists under Section 313 Cr.P.C., hearing learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record, accused persons Badlu and Shabir have been convicted under sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC and the appeal preferred against the order of conviction was also dismissed. Hence this revision.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the statement of Dr. R.B. Jaiswal it is admitted that accused Shabir in the said incident dated 12.3.1988 received five injuries: (i) one contusion (ii) incised wound (iii) abrasion (iv) and (v) contusions on chest and head. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the incident is of year 1988 and since then 36 years have elapsed. In the meantime, co-accused Badlu has died and case against him has been abated vide order dated 27.8.2018. The present accused is now very old age and in the same incident he also received injuries. He belongs to rural areas. The social and economic status is very poor. The whole family depends upon him. In these circumstances, lenient view may be taken against the revisionist and justice will be done, if he may be punished imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶15

From perusal of both the lower courts' order, it is very clear that this revisionist Shabir has also received injury in

¶16

¶17

the same incident. It is not clear that the injuries received on the head of injured Shabir was cast by accused/revisionist alone. He has been punished under sections 325/34 and 323/34 IPC on the basis of a common intention.

¶18

Learned A.G.A submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the judgment and order under challenge convicting the revisionist.

¶19

I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through entire record.

¶20

On the point of conviction both the courts below have given concurrent findings, hence no interference is called for.

¶21

On the point of sentence, it appears that the revisionist Shabir has also received injuries and he has been convicted and sentenced under sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC. In the opinion of Court, looking to the old age of the revisionist, lenient view may be taken. Justice will be done, if he is punished and sentenced R.I. already undergone with fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 323/34 IPC and Rs. 5000/- under section 325/34 IPC.

¶22

The revision is dismissed on the point of conviction.

¶23

The revision is partly allowed on the point of sentence. The impugned judgements and orders dated 20.9.1991 and 08.4.1991 are set aside and the revisionist Shabir is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs. 5000/under section 325/34. Fine be deposited within two months. In case of default of payment of fine revisionist shall further undergo three month's R.I. under section 323/34 and six month's R.I. under section 325/34 IPC.

¶24

¶25

Let a copy of this judgment alongwith original record of Court below (if received) be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to the Court within three months to keep on record.

¶26

Order Date :- 30.8.2018 Puspendra

Badlu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badlu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nasima and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ghaffor Vs State and Others

Jog Pal Singh and Another Vs IV Asj and Ohters

Gulsher Vs State of U.P.

Jag Mohan Singh Vs State

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others