Partly allowed

Bhoodeo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2018CRLR/1786/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petition partially for two senior citizens convicted of bigamy. Considering their age and economic status, the court reduced the sentence to time already served and imposed a fine instead of further imprisonment, distinguishing from cases requiring strict penalty.

What did the court decide?

Convictions upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone with fine of Rs. 8,000/- each; rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on default.

Bhoodeo Vs State of U.P. — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1786 of 1987

¶3

Revisionist :- Bhoodeo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- K.M. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,U.C. Mishra,V.C. Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Present revision in respect of revisionist No. 1 Bhoodeo and revisionist No.3Ganga Ram has already been abated vide order dated 20.7.2018 and 28.8.2018 respectively.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for revisionist Nos.2- Latoori & revisionist No.4 Kalyan Singh, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 5.3.1987 passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate-1, Etawah in Criminal Case No. 58 of 1987, Police Station Sahayat, District Etawah convicting revisionists under Section 494/109 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.200/- each and in default to deposit fine, to undergo for additional three months R.I. and judgment and order dated 27.10.1987 passed by Additional sessions Judge/Special Judge(E.C. Act), Etawah in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 1987 confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

¶8

In the nutshell, facts of the case are that one case was filed against seven accused alleging that during life time of Ram Prakash/complainant, his wife Ram Wati was remarried with Bhoodev on 13.12.1982 with the help of other accused persons and she started living with Bhoodev as his wife.

¶9

Charges were framed against accused persons. P.W.-1 Ram Prakash, P.W.-2 Ram Pal, P.W.-3 Bade Lal, P.W.-4 Mahadev have been examined. D.W.-1 Ram Das and D.W.-2 Khachair Singh have been examined in defence.

¶10

After trial, Bhoodev, Latoori Singh, Ganga Ram and Kalyan Singh have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid while other accused namely, Ram Wati, Shree Devi and Ganga Devi have been given benefit of Section 4 of probation Act for one year. In appeal, conviction and sentence of revisionists have been confirmed.

¶11

Learned counsel for revisionists submitted that main allegation was against Bhoodev who has died and revision in his respect, has been abated. Two alive revisionists namely Latoori and Kalyan Singh are now between the age group of 60-70 years and during trial and bail, they have served out about three months in jail. The incident is of year 1982 and since then 36 years have elapsed; they belong to very poor family and complainant Ram Prakash is no more. It is further submitted that revisionists are ready to deposit fine before trial Court/appellate Court, hence lenient view may be taken against revisionists

¶12

and they may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶13

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 persons, hence a lenient view may be taken.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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."

¶17

Both the Courts have given concurrent finding of facts. Hence no interference is called for in the conviction of revisionists Latoori and Kalyan Singh.

¶18

Considering the age, social & economic status of revisionists and family background, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending revisionists to jail at this stage and purpose would be served if they are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶19

The revision is partly allowed. revisionist Nos.2- Latoori and revisionist No.4 Kalyan Singh are convicted under Section 494/109 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.8000/- each and in default to deposit fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶20

Copy of this judgment and order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within three months, which shall be kept on record.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.9.2018

¶22

P.P.

Bhoodeo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoodeo 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

Inamul Haq Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Hamid and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Radhey Shyam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Sumat and Other Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bihari and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rehan Kureshi Vs State of U.P.