Partly allowed

Kendra Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2018CRLR/1514/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the revisionist but modified the sentence by reducing the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine to Rs.20,000.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs.20,000 with Rs.15,000 directed as compensation; default warrants one month rigorous imprisonment.

Kendra Pal Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

Reserve Judgment

Court No. - 57

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1514 of 1999

¶5

Revisionist :- Kendra Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State of U.P.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1998 – Kendra Pal and Others Vs. State of U.P. whereby judgment and order dated 07.08.1998, passed by Judicial Magistrate IInd, Budaun passed in Criminal Case No. 1159 of 1994 – State Vs. Kendra Pal and Others, Case Crime No. 12 of 1986, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station – Bilsi, District – Budaun, was modified to the extent that accused-revisionist was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 326 I.P.C. while other coaccused persons have been acquitted and the revisionist has also been acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for revisionist urged that the alleged incident took place on account of petty dispute over digging a drain, in which informant/PW-2 Sobran Singh received two injuries, the impugned judgment and orders dated 26.07.1999 and 07.08.1998, have been passed by the courts below without properly considering the material available on record and have wrongly convicted the revisionist under Section 326 I.P.C.

¶10

¶11

After arguing the matter up to some length, learned counsel for the revisionist confines his prayer only to the extent of sentence awarded to revisionist with submission that same may be reduced suitably and he is ready to pay enhanced fine if any imposed by the Court and will not treat it enhancement of sentence. In the above regard he contends that revisionist is an old person aged about 65 years, he has also served some part of sentence awarded to him. The incident took place more than 30 years ago. The revisionist and complainant/injured Sobran Singh are cousin brothers and are living amicably. The injury caused to the victim has been healed. Except this case, revisionist has no other criminal antecedents.

¶12

Learned counsel for revisionist in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following Apex Court's judgments by submitting that revisionist's case is covered by the said judgments.

¶13

The Apex Court in the case of Tarak Nath Singh & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1998 SCC ( Cri) 587 , held as under :

¶14

" It was lastly submitted by the learned counsel than even if the conviction of the appellants is maintained the sentence imposed upon them deserves to be reduced particularly in view of the fact that the accused and injured are close relatives and now 18 years have passed. He also pointed out that the appellants had remained in jail for a substantial period and now the situation has also changed. During these 18 years, the appellants have not been involved in any offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone but a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each is imposed upon the appellants. ”

¶15

This Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1866 of 1984 – Saiyadeen and Another Vs. State of U.P. (decided on 15.07.2010), placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Tarak Nath Singh (Supra), held as under :

¶16

“ In view of above discussion, the conviction of the appellants is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment if reduced to the period already undergone but the appellants shall pay the fine of Rs.3,000/- each within one year from today, in default of the payment of fine, the appellants shall

¶17

¶18

undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months. It is directed that out of the fine, if deposited, the injured (Ram Sanehi) be paid its two third as compensation. In case the injured is not alive, the same shall be paid to his heirs. In case the appellants have died, the above mentioned order with regard to payment of fine shall not be given effect thereto.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. ”

¶20

Learned A.G.A., has opposed the prayer by submitting that the court below has passed appropriate sentence considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the evidence and material available on record. In view thereof, no reduction in the sentence of imprisonment is required but fairly conceded that the incident is more than 30 years old and the revisionist has served some part of sentence awarded to him.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I am of the view that on the basis of evidence led in the case, the findings recorded by the trial court appear to be cogent and sound. The prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond the shadows of doubt. The findings of conviction for the offences as noticed above is well discussed and is supported by the evidence on record, the findings of conviction does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, no case of interference in the order of conviction passed by learned Court below is made out.

¶22

In view of above, the order of conviction is confirmed, but having regard to the peculiar facts of this case that the occurrence of the above mentioned case has taken place about 30 years ago. The revisionist has served some part of sentence awarded to him. He is aged about 65 years. It is not reported that he had been involved in any other offence. I am of the view that sentence awarded to the revisionist is required to be modified subject to enhancement of fine.

¶23

In the result, the conviction of the revisionist is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already

¶24

¶25

undergone with the fine of Rs.20,000/-, instead of Rs.1000/- as imposed by the Trial Court, within three months' from the date of order. In default of the payment of fine, the revisionist shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months. In case of deposit of aforesaid fine, Rs.15,000/- therefrom shall be paid as compensation to opposite party no. 2. In case the victim is not alive, the same shall be paid to his heirs.

¶26

Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed .

¶27

Let a copy of this order be certified to the learned Sessions Judge/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance.

¶28

Order Date :- 31.1.2018 A. Verma

Kendra Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kendra Pal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gauri Shankar Vs Ram Gopal

Munshi Vs Bhoorey Lal and Others

Jamil Ahamad Vs Islamuddin

Ravindra Maurya Vs Mansha Devi and 2 Others

Sada Shiv Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.