Allowed

Raja Ram and Ors. v. State

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2018CRLR/1578/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Hon'ble Court noted conviction of the revisionist Raja Ram under IPC Sections 323 and 34 by the trial court for an offence committed 36 years ago, but after abatement of two co-accused and finding no illegality, the revision was allowed, conviction upheld, but sentence set aside and accused released on probation of good conduct for two years subject to personal bond and

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed, conviction upheld, sentence set aside, accused released on probation of good conduct for two years, directed to furnish bond and sureties.

Raja Ram and Ors. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1578 of 1993 Revisionist :- Raja Ram & Ors. Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- Satya Prabash Srivastava,S.K. Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶3

List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionists.

¶4

Heard learned learned A.G.A. for State.

¶5

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.08.1993 passed by First Additional Session Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 31/1988 (Raja Ram and others Vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.03.1988 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Case No. 184/1986 (State Vs. Raja Ram and others). Vide order dated 29.03.1988 revisionists Raja Ram, Ramnain and Sitaram were convicted for offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each.

¶6

During revision, revisionists Ramnain and Sitaram have expired, due to which in their reference revision has been abated by order dated 26.07.2017 of this Court.

¶7

As per prosecution version, on 23.09.1982 at about 5:00 p.m. accused Raja Ram, Ramnain and Sitaram have caused injuries to complainant Ramkripal, Sahdev and Ram Adhin due to which they sustained injuries. During trial, accused Bulbuli expired due to which trial against Bulbuli was abated by trial court. Complainant Ram Kripal and injured witnesses Prithvipal, Ram Adhin and Sahdeo have proved the prosecution version, on the basis of that trial court convicted the accused.

¶8

From the perusal of judgment and order passed by court below, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned order of conviction against revisionist Raja Ram.

¶9

In view of above, conviction against revisionist Raja Ram passed by trial court is affirmed.

¶10

Occurrence has taken place 36 years ago.

¶11

Considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to release the accused-revisionist on probation.

¶12

Accordingly, instant criminal revision is allowed . Conviction of revisionist Raja Ram under Section 323/34 I.P.C. is hereby upheld, but his sentence is set aside. Instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, he is released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years. Revisionist is directed to furnish a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial court, before the trial court within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order by the trial court with the condition that he shall appear and receive sentence when called by this Court before such period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.4.2018 Sharad/-

Raja Ram and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram and Ors. v. State

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

Raju Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Krishna Jeevan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bhushan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Pd. Yadav Vs Smt. Sushila Yadav and Others

Rajdev Vs State and Another

Asendra Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another