This criminal revision against a conviction for assault and voluntarily causing hurt was partly allowed. The court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period the revisionist had already undergone in jail.
Conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone. Bail bonds cancelled; surrender not required.
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. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 187 of 1991
Revisionist :- Raj Bahadur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Prakash Chandra,Rakesh Kumar Rathore,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Appeal No. 36 of 1989 (Sarman and others Vs. State of U.P.) whereby the appeal was dismissed but sentence was reduced to half of the sentence awarded by the Magistrate vide order dated 28.6.1989. By the order dated 28.6.1989 learned Magistrate has convicted the accused Sarman, Raj Bahadur and Rakesh for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 325/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and were sentenced to:-
(i) rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 323 IPC; &
(ii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for further one month under Section 325/34 IPC.
3. As per prosecution version, on 22.5.1984 at about 10:00 AM accused Sarman, Raj Bahadur and Rakesh assaulted on Karan Singh with blunt object i.e. lathi and danda due to which he sustained simple and grievous injury.
4. To substantiate charge against accused, prosecution has examined PW-1 injured Karan Singh, PW-2 Shivraj Singh, PW-3 Moti Lal, PW-4 Dr. A.K. Garg and PW-5 Dr. S. Vardhan.
5 . The statement of witnesses of fact have been corroborated by the medical evidence, on the basis of which, impugned order has been passed.
6. From perusal of the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri dated 5.9.2017, it reveals that revisionist (Rakesh) has expired in the year 1990. Therefore, revision in reference to revisionist (Rakesh) stands abated.
7. Occurrence has taken place 34 years ago and from perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that revisionist (Raj Bahadur) was in custody during trial.
8. From perusal of the impugned order of conviction, I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below against the revisionist (Raj Bahadur).
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the sentence awarded to revisionist (Raj Bahadur) is reduced to the period already undergone.
10. Consequently, this criminal revision is allowed and the conviction of the revisionist (Raj Bahadur) under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC is affirmed. However, his sentence under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. From perusal of the record, it reveals that revisionist has deposited the fine amount.
11. The revisionist (Raj Bahadur) is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for its compliance and send back the lower court record to court concerned.
Order Date :- 9.4.2018
Jaswant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded to the revisionist should be reduced to the period already undergone.
Whether the conviction of the revisionist for assault causing grievous injury and voluntarily causing hurt stands affirmed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Bahadur
State of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
