High Court allowed the criminal revision of an absent accused convicted under Section 323 IPC. The conviction was upheld but the sentence was set aside and probation of good conduct for two years was granted with a requirement to deposit compensation.
Released on probation of good conduct for 2 years; directed to deposit Rs. 5000 compensation.
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. - 19 of 1999 Revisionist :- Indrajeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Amarendra Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist to argue the case.
This criminal revision has been preferred by revisionist against the judgment and order dated 09.11.1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kushinagar in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1998 (Daljeet and others Vs. State of U.P.), Police Station Nebua Naurangia, District Kushinagar, whereby conviction of revisionist Indrajeet under Section 323 I.P.C. was maintained but sentence was reduced to three month simple imprisonment from one year's imprisonment. By the impugned judgment, conviction of accused Laljeet and Ram Niwas under Section 323 I.P.C. was set aside.
As per prosecution version, on 02.03.1990 at about 12:00 in 'noon' bullocks of accused Daljeet, Indrajeet and Ram Niwas were grazing the wheat crops of informant Jaddu. On being objected by complainant Jaddu, they assaulted him with kicks and fists and with 'lathi-danda', due to which he sustained injury.
On 04.03.1990 at 9:30 p.m., report of non-cognizable offence was lodged against accused Indrajeet, Daljeet and Ram Niwas under Section 323 I.P.C. Informant Jaddu was medically examined by Dr. Kameshwar Singh who has mentioned in his medical report that there is a fracture in the left hand of Jaddu.
Jaddu is informant and injured witness of the case. He has proved the prosecution version. His statement is corroborated by medical evidence.
In view of above, there is no illegality in the impugned order of conviction against revisionist passed by learned Sessions Judge.
Occurrence has taken place 28 years ago. Considering the particulars facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to release the accused/revisionist on probation.
Accordingly, instant criminal revision is allowed . Conviction of accused/revisionist Indrajeet under Section 323 I.P.C. is hereby upheld but his sentence is set aside. Instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, revisionist be 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.
Revisionist is further directed to deposit compensation of Rs. 5000/- in the trial court within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order by the trial court. The compensation amount shall be paid to injured Jaddu or in his absence, to his legal heirs.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Kushinagar for its compliance.
Order Date :- 17.4.2018/Sharad/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to uphold the conviction of the revisionist who was absent from the court.
Whether to release the revisionist on probation given the age of the offense.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
