In criminal revision, the court partly allowed the petition. While maintaining the conviction under sections 452, 323 IPC, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist while maintaining conviction.
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. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4 of 1993
Revisionist :- Kakhanchi Khatik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Shree Ram Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 9.12.1992 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1992 where by the appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed and judgment and order dated 12.08.1992 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda was confirmed convicting and sentencing the revisionist for six months rigorous imprisonment under sections 452, 323 IPC.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned court below has not examined the witness properly and without proper appraisal of the witnesses, convicted the revisionist. He further submitted that there are material contradictions leading the prosecution story completely doubtful and wholly unreliable on the point of place and time of occurrence but the courts below committed gross error in ignoring the same. It is further submitted that courts below have failed to consider the defence version as the injuries of the injured were simple in nature. It is next submitted that findings recorded by the courts below convicting the revisionist are illegal and perverse. He further submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not a previous convict. Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist has already undergone certain
period in jail and requested that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
The learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180 as well as of this Court in the case of Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011 decided on 31 October, 2011, Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010 decided on May 29th May, 2012 and Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005 decided on 4th August, 2014, in which, Apex Court as well as of this Court without disturbing conviction, released the accused on the basis of sentence undergone.
Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is partly allowed maintaining the conviction of revisionist, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
Order Date :- 5.12.2018 Sartaj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction should be maintained while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Whether the findings of the courts below were illegal and perverse.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nand Lal vs. State of UttarakhandReferred¶9
Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180
Devendra in Jail Vs. StateReferred¶9
Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011
Veerwati Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010
Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kakhanchi Khatik
State Of U.P.
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
