Partly allowed

Prakash and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018CRLR/2075/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court partly allowed the appeal against conviction. Considering the age of the accused, the delay of 26 years, and the period already spent in jail, the Court modified the sentence to the duration already undergone, replacing imprisonment with a fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; revisionists directed to deposit a fine of Rs.1000/- each within two months.

Prakash and Others Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2075 of 1998

¶3

Revisionist :- Prakash & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Pathak,A.K.Rajbhar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

1- Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Mayank Mishra, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

2- This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.12.1998 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeals No. 41 of 1995 and 42 of 1995, arising out of Complainant Case No. 523 of 1994,which was partly allowed but has upheld the conviction and sentence of the revisionists under Sections 147, 323, 149, 452 and 506 I.P.C. awarded by the order dated 26.9.1995 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Saharanpur by which he had convicted the revisionists in Case no. 523 of 1994, under Sections 147, 323, 149, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.100/each.

¶7

3- In nutshell, the prosecution case is that one Complaint Case No. 523 of 1994 (Hari Ram Vs. Prakash and five others), under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur was filed by Hariram against Prakash and five others alleging that on 2.10.1992 at 8-00 p.m. they assaulted by lathi and danda to the complainant and witnesses, namely Satyapal, Mangey Ram and Kewal,who had seen the incident. As per medical examination, accused was summoned after trial. All accused were convicted under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- each. Both the sentences will run concurrently. Against this order, two Criminal Appeals no.41 of 1995 and 42 of 1995 were filed by the revisionists and vide order dated 1.12.1998 both the appeals were partly allowed and convicted the revisionists under Sections 147, 323, 452 and 506 I.P.C. to undergo three months R.I. with a fine of Rs.100/- each.

¶8

4- During trial, revisionist no. 3-Saktu, revisionist no. 5-Atar Sing and revisionist no. 6-Sobha died and the proceedings against the revisionists no. 3, 5 and 6 stands abated vide order dated 8.5.2017 by this Court.

¶9

5- Heard learned counsel for the revisionists no. 1, 2 and 4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

6- Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the case is of the year 1992, 26 years have been elapsed, the age of the revisionist no. 1 is 67 years, age of the revisionist no. 2 is 62 years and age of the revisionist no. 4 is 42 years and they are suffering from 25-26 years during trial as well as in appeal and in this revision, hence no useful purpose would be served to send the revisionists in jail.

¶11

7- Learned counsel for the revisionists is not arguing on the point of conviction.

¶12

8- All the revisionists are belongs to rural areas and belongs to poor family and their social and economic condition is not well, hence end of justice will serve if they may be sentenced for the period already undergone by imposing some fine.

¶13

9- Learned A.G.A. 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

10- Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶15

1-Mushtaq and others Vs. State of U.P. [UP CrR 2004 (II)] page 60.

¶16

2-Dasha Mani Shukla & another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2000 (2) JIC 970 (All).

¶17

3- Dannoo and another Vs. State of U.P. 1999 (1) JIC 851 (All).

¶18

11- Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that in paragraph-4 this Court in the case of Dannoo and another (supra) , has held that accused-revisionist has not challenged the conviction of of this accused-revisionist for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 I.P.C. He has made submissions only on the question of sentence. He has pointed out that the occurrence related to the year 1974 and the accused-revisionist was coming down on bail from the month of June, 1984 uptil now. He has further pointed out from the record of this revision that this accused revisionist had surrendered in court on 31.5.1984 in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 14.5.1984 of the Additional Sessions Judge and that this court had passed the bail order in his favour only on 13.6.1984 and

¶19

that the matter having related to Kanpur Dehat, it would have taken a view more days for obtaining the actual release of the accused-revisionist from jail after furnishing bonds before the Magistrate concerned there. In short, the argument is that he has already suffered R.I. in jail for a period of atleast a fortnight. He has further argued that sending the accused revisionist back to jail now after such a long gap of time would do more harm than good. He has prayed that the sentence of imprisonment in the case of each offence may be reduced to the period already undergone. This prayer may be accepted to the extent that in view of the reduction in the sentence of imprisonment, suitable amount of fine may be imposed and time may be granted to pay the same.

¶20

12- 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.

¶21

13- Considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as in this Court and also considering that the revisionists are belongs to rural areas and belongs to poor family and their social and economic condition is not well and the age of the revisionists and time spent during trial as well as in appeal and revision, the ends of justice would be served if the revisionists will be sentenced to the period already undergone under Sections 147, 323/149, 452 and 506 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.1000/- each.

¶22

14- Revision is partly allowed. Revisionist no.1-Prakash, revisionist no.2-Amar Singh and revisionist no.4-Satish are sentenced already undergone for the aforesaid offences. The revisionists are directed to deposit the fine within a period of two months from today.

¶23

Office is directed to Fax or e-mail this order along with lower court record to the court concerned immediately.

¶24

Compliance report be sent to this Court within three months. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

¶25

Order Date :- 30.7.2018 OP

Prakash and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash and Others 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

Zahid @ Sukka Vs State of U.P.

Laturi Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Awdhesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aidal Singh Alias Karuwa and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P.