Partly allowed

Naresh and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2018CRLR/1554/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced the sentence of the petitioners by convicting them only under Sections 332/34 IPC with imprisonment already undergone plus a fine, partly allowing the revision. Subsequently, the court recalled a non-bailable warrant order and condoned delay.

What did the court decide?

Revision partly allowed; petitioners convicted under Sections 332/34 IPC sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.10,000; N.B.W. order recalled.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1554 of 1993

¶3

Revisionist :- Naresh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Apul Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Rahul Mishra and Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of revisionists is taken on record.

¶6

Revisionist No.1 Naresh and revisionist No.2 Umesh are personally present in the Court. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA . Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 5.10.1993 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1992(Naresh and another vs. State of U.P.) allowing the appeal in part acquitting revisionists under section 504, 506 IPC and upholding the conviction under section 332/34 IPC and sentence of two years S.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo one month S.I.

¶8

In brief, facts of the case are that FIR was lodged against revisionists as Case Crime No. 19 at police station Rauja, District Shahjahanpur alleging that on 7.2.1989 at 5 P.M. they assaulted Chotey Lal at the time of meter checking. He received injury on his hand.Charge sheet was submitted under section 332/353/504/506(2) IPC.

¶9

Trial Court examined P.W.-1 R.P. Gupta, P.W.2 Chotey Lal, P.W.-3 Devendra Singh, P.W.-4 Kadeer Ahmad, P.W.5 Om Prakash, P.W.-6 Shehjadey, P.W.-7 Ram Chandra, P.W.-8 Sub Inspector Ram Pal Singh, P.W.-9 Ram Kumar Gupta.

¶10

After recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and hearing learned counsel for the parties, Trial Court convicted accused under Section 332/34, 504, 506(2) IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.1000/-, one month's S.I. one year's S.I. each respectively thereunder. In appeal, they have been acquitted under section 504 and 506(2) IPC and conviction and sentence under section 332/34 IPC has been confirmed. Hence this revision.

¶11

On the point of facts and conviction, both Trial and Appellate

¶12

Courts have given concurrent finding and view taken by both the Courts is plausible view. Hence no interference is called for on the point of conviction.

¶13

On the point of sentence learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the incident is of year 1989, about 29 years have elapsed; revisionists are about 60 years old and they have spent ten days in jail. In the circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them to jail and lenient view may be taken against them and they may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶14

Learned AGA opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old and the revisionists are also old men, hence a lenient view may be taken.

¶15

Learned counsel for the revisionists, in support of his submission, placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Sukhbir and others vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 2905 of 1980 decided on 16.9.1999 and judgment of Supreme Court in Narayansingh Nathusingh vs. Natvarlal Hiralal Thakkar and another , (1981) 4 SCC 507. In all these cases, sentence has been reduced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶16

In the case of Ved Ram and others vs. State of U.P., 2010(68) ACC 182 wherein appellants have already remained in jail for almost eight months and on being satisfied with the period of incarceration, the Court imposed additional fine of Rs.1000/and altered conviction from under Section 307 IPC to under section 324/149 IPC.

¶17

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Kaisarbaig and others, (2018) 4 SCC 403 sentenced the appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has already been paid to the victim under Section 148/324/149 IPC.

¶18

The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Kalia 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."

¶19

Considering the age, social status, punishment, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them to jail at this stage and it would be appropriate and justified to reduce sentence awarded by appellate Court. Purpose would be served if they

¶20

are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶21

The revision is partly allowed. Revisionist No.1 Naresh and revisionist No.2 Umesh are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.10000/- each under Section 332/34 IPC and in default to deposit fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Fine shall be deposited within fifteen days from today.

¶22

Office is directed to transmit copy of this order to the Court below within two days. Compliance report be submitted within one month which shall be kept on record.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.9.2018 P.P.

¶24

Court No. - 41

¶25

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1554 of 1993

¶26

Revisionist :- Naresh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Apul Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶27

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J. Delay Condonation Application No. 4 of 2018 Recall application No. 5 of 2018

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the applicants/revisionists.

¶29

There is Recall application No. 5 of 2018 for recall of order dated 18.7.2018 issuing non-bailable warrant, initiating proceeding under section 82 Cr.P.C and issuing notice to sureties. Since revisionists are personally present in the Court and learned counsel is ready to argue the case, order dated 18.7.2018 passed by this Court is hereby recalled. Delay is condoned.

¶30

Both applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶31

Order Date :- 24.9.2018 P.P.

Naresh and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh and Others 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

Deena Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gagan Singh @ Ratnesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ramjeet Gupta Vs State

Shah Nazar Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Jabbar Vs State of U.P.

Vishambhar Vs State of U.P.