The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision. The conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced. The revisionists were ordered to deposit Rs. 1000/- and then be released from jail forthwith.
Conviction maintained; sentence reduced; revisionists to deposit Rs. 1000/- and be released forthwith.
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. - 26
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2097 of 1998
Revisionist :- Ram Akshaibar Singh & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Parcha filed today by Sri Vinay Saran, Advocate on behalf of revisionist be taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
It has been stated in para 8 of the supplementary affidavit that revisionist No. 1 Ram Akshaibar Singh has already expired, therefore, may be confined to revisionist no. 2 and 3.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 1,12,1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1998 dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence along with fine of Rs. 1000/-.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned courts below have failed to consider that the F.I.R. was much delayed and there was no explanation at all in respect of such delay. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the F.I.R. The court below did not consider the statement of revisionists that there was no occasion for the accused to bring water through the nali alleged to be existed in the field of the complainant. It is next submitted that the court below did not consider the fact that no offence under section 504 and 506 IPC have been made out against the revisionists while passing the order of conviction, but in spite of that the court below convicted the revisionists under Section 323/34, 325/34, 504 and 506(2) I.P.C. and awarded punishment of one year rigorous imprisonment.
Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist is in jail and has already undergone certain period in jail and requested that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
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 revisionists, sentence is reduced subject to deposit of Rs. 1000/-. After depositing the said amount, revisionists shall be released from the jail forthwith.
Order Date :- 22.11.2018 Sartaj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under sections 323, 325, 504, and 506 IPC should be maintained in revision.
Whether the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine should be reduced considering the period already undergone and delay in FIR.
Whether the revisionist, having undergone jail time, should be released on deposit of fine.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Akshaibar Singh and others
State Of U.P.
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
