Allowed

Shyam Badan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2018CRLR/2488/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding an acid attack conviction, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 326 IPC as grievous injury was not proved. The conviction was converted to Section 324 IPC and sentence was enhanced slightly despite the revisionist having served part of the term.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC set aside; convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine; conviction under Section 506 IPC upheld.

Shyam Badan Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2488 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Shyam Badan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Riyajuddin Ansari,Babu Lal Ram

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A., for the State. Perused the record.

¶7

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2014 (Shyam Badan Vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Case No. 700048 of 2011, P.S. Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar. By the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna, revisionist (Shyam Badan) was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 506 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced to:-

¶8

(i) rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for further one year under Section 326 IPC; &

¶9

(ii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for further three months under Section 506 IPC.

¶10

3. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶11

4. As per prosecution version, in the intervening night of 16/17-6-2011 Smt. Salahanta Devi wife of informant was sleeping in her house with child. At about 1 'O' Clock in the night accused Shayam Badan, Ram Niwas and Mulayam entered into house and throw acid upon them. Due to which, Smt. Salahanta Devi and her child got injured. She was medically examined on 17.6.2011 at 7:25 PM at District Hospital Gorakhpur and superficial

¶12

deep burn injury was found on her face and neck. Nagendra son of injured Smt. Salahanta Devi has also sustained injuries but he was not medically examined.

¶13

5. Injured Smt. Salahanta Devi and her son Nagendra have proved the prosecution version.

¶14

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that FIR has been lodged after six days of occurrence without any explanation. There is no any evidence on record to show that Smt. Salahanta Devi had sustained grievous injury. From the prosecution version offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out against the revisionist. Occurrence has taken place in the night. No one has seen the occurrence. Learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order without properly appreciating the evidence available on record.

¶15

7. Apart from arguing on merit of the case, learned counsel for the revisionist contended that revisionist has served about five years and two months of his sentence, therefore, the sentence of revisionist (Shyam Badan) may be reduced to period already undergone by him.

¶16

8. Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the courts below and as such the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

9. PW-5 Dr. Vimal Kishore Suman has admitted this fact that injured Smt. Salahanta Devi was admitted for one day in the hospital. He further admitted that there was no any injury in the eyes of the injured Smt. Salahanta Devi.

¶18

10 . From the statement of Smt. Salahanta Devi, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that revisionist (Shaym Badan) has caused burn injuries to injured Smt. Salahanta Devi by throwing acid on her.

¶19

11 . As per Section 320 IPC only in case of permanent disfiguration of the face or head, it could be held that Smt. Salahanta Devi has sustained grievous injury. There is no any evidence on record to show that Smt. Salahanta Devi has sustained grievous injury or face or head was permanently dis-figured. Without perusal of the injury report, learned trial court has held that Smt. Salahanta Devi has sustained grievous injuries which is not sustainable.

¶20

12. From perusal of the injury report and statement of

¶21

Doctor, it reveals that Smt. Salahanta Devi has sustained simple injury.

¶22

13. In view of above, conviction of the revisionist (Shayam Badan) under Section 326 IPC is not sustainable. His conviction is converted to Section 324 IPC from Section 326 IPC.

¶23

14 . From perusal of the record, the order dated 8.10.2015 of Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna reveals that party has filed compromise before the appellate court.

¶24

15. Accordingly, this criminal revision stands allowed . Conviction and sentence of the revisionist (Shyam Badan) under Section 326 IPC is set aside. His conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC is upheld. Revisionist (Shayam Badan) is convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for further three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶25

16. If the revisionist (Shyam Badan) has completed the aforesaid modified sentence, he shall be released forthwith on deposit of fine amount. After fine amount is being deposited, the same shall be paid to the injured Smt. Salahanta.

¶26

17. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna for its compliance. Office is further directed to send back the lower court record.

¶27

Order Date :- 1.5.2018 Jaswant

Shyam Badan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Badan 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

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Ram and Others Vs State of U.P.

Raja @ Rajat Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zahid @ Sahil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hardan Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ram Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Ishaq Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others