The Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an appellate order convicting the accused under Section 324 I.P.C. instead of Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to a fine for an injury not dangerous to life.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1453 of 1990
Revisionist :- Prem Shankar Lal Srivastava Opposite Party :- State & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- H.N. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- List has been revised. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is not present.
2- Heard Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3-This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 23.7.1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal no. 82 of 1987 confirming the judgment and order dated 13.8.1987 in S.T. No. 225 of 1985 whereby the conviction of opposite party no.2-Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava was modified from under Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him with a fine of Rs.500/only.
3- Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by the courts below are illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind.
4- Evidence was produced by the prosecution and offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist, but it was wrongly converted into Section 324 I.P.C. awarding Rs.500/- as fine is also arbitrary.
5- Learned A.G.A. supported the judgements of the courts below.
6- From perusal of the records and judgements of the courts below, it transpires that there was a dispute between maternal uncle and nephew and in this incident, injury received by Prem Shankar Lal Srivastava was not found dangerous to life. It has been clearly stated in the statement of the doctor S.C. Srivastava P.W.3 and P.W.4 Ramashaker Rai also stated that injuries caused to the injured was abrasion hence appellate court has convicted the accused under Section 324 I.P.C. and punished with a fine of Rs.500/- only.
7-Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that at the time of bail, the accused had been languishing in jail for 27 days and after conviction for 22 days (total 49 days) and opposite party
no.2-Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava is the nephew of Prem Shanker Srivastava, the revisionist.
8- This Court does not agree with the argument that the conversion of Section 307 I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. is illegal. From perusal of the evidence injuries received by the injured, it reveals that the injuries were not found on vital part of the body and was not dangerous to life.
9- So far as point of sentence is concerned, under Section 324 I.P.C. there is no minimum sentence provided. It is provided that "the accused shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both". Hence it is total discretion of the Court to award sentence within the purview of legal limit prescribed under the law. Due to reason that the dispute was between the maternal uncle and nephew, hence the appellate court has exercised its discretion in favour of Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava accused and sentenced him to pay Rs.500/- as fine only.
10- Considering the period of languishing in jail and relations between the parties are cordial, the discretion exercised by the appellate court as well as revisional court are not arbitrary and illegal.
11- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
12-Lower court record as well as copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 7.9.2018
OP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisionist's challenge to the conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. instead of Section 307 I.P.C. warrants interference.
Whether the fine imposed on the accused during the term of Section 324 I.P.C. was arbitrary.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Prem Shankar Lal Srivastava
State
Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
