Veero v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
A single-judge criminal revision upheld the conviction under Section 354 IPC for outraging modesty but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone due to inordinate delay and time served.
What did the court decide?
Conviction upheld under Section 354 IPC. Sentence reduced to period already undergone. Accused ordered to be released forthwith if not in custody elsewhere.
What the court decided
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2055 of 1999
Revisionist :- Veero Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- N.S.Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.10.1999 passed by XVIth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 115/1997 (Veero Vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.06.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Agra in Criminal Case No. 26/1996 (State Vs. Veero) arising out of Case Crime No. 240/1994, Police Station- Madpura, District Agra.
By order dated 19.06.1997, revisionist/accused Veero was convicted under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
As per prosecution version, on 12.07.1994 at about 11:00 p.m. revisionist/accused Veero entered into residence of informant Bigha Ram, assaulted and outraged the modesty of his wife. His wife has proved the prosecution version. Her statement before court, is supported by medical evidence. There is three injuries on the person of proseuctirx. There is no major contradiction in her statement so that her statement may be discarded. The well reasoned judgment and order passed by trial court, is based on evidence and not perverse.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Veero
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/2055/1999
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court