Heman v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In a criminal revision filed by Heman against a conviction under Section 324 I.P.C., the court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in jail upon deposit of a fine.
What did the court decide?
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 2,000, allowing release from jail forthwith thereafter.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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. - 60
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1521 of 1999
Revisionist :- Heman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Nar Singh Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 12.7.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1999 (Heman Vs. State of U.P.) whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court was upheld.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the F.I.R. was lodged pursuant to Pradhan of the village. No occurrence had taken place and a false and fabricated F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. no time was mentioned, in spite of that, the revisionist was illegally convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the F.I.R. The court below did not consider the statement of PW-3 who has stated about the correctness of the F.I.R. The incident took place at 12.00 P.M. whereas the F.I.R. was lodged at 6.30 P.M. It is next submitted that the court below did not consider the fact the the revisionist is the first offender and is entitled for the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. but in spite of that the court below convicted the appellant under Section 324 I.P.C.and awarded punishment of one year rigorous imprisonment.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. should be maintained given the claims of a fabricated FIR.
Whether the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. was applicable to the first offender revisionist.
Whether the revisionist's sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone in jail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Heman
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Neeraj Tiwari
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/1521/1999
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court