Partly allowed

Vinod v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2018CRLR/3554/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC. Revisionist sought leniency due to age, poverty, and time elapsed. High Court allowed revision in part, reducing sentence to imprisonment already undergone plus fine.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.1000/-; default to three months' simple imprisonment.

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

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 41

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3554 of 2008

¶4

Revisionist :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- I.K. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 8.6.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate-1^st , Meerut convicting and sentencing revisionist for one year imprisonment under section 323 IPC in Criminal Case No. 3304 of 2005(State vs. Vinod) , Police Station Kankar Khera, District Meerut and against judgment and order dated 27.11.2008 passed by Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Meerut dismissing the appeal No. 174 of 2006 confirming the judgment and order dated 8.6.2006.

¶8

In brief, facts of the case are that on Sant Singh(brother of the complainant) was going for election duty in vehicle No. U.P.-15E9629, the conductor of the vehicle forcibly threw him from running vehicle. He received injury on his face and leg. The case was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against revisionist under section 323/504 IPC. Charge was framed against him and Trial Court examined P.W.-1 Omveer Singh, P.W.-2 Sant Singh, P.W.-3 Pushpendra Pawar, P.W.-4 SI Kishanpal Singh and P.W.-5 Constable Dinesh Chandra.

¶9

After recording statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing learned counsel for the parties, Trial Court convicted revisionist under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to one year's vide order dated 8.6.2006. He was acquitted under section 504 IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2006 filed against conviction order was dismissed. Hence this revision.

¶10

5 On the point of facts and conviction, both Trial and Appellate Courts have given concurrent finding and view taken by both the Courts is plausible view. Hence no interference is called for on the point of conviction.

¶11

On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the incident is of year 2004, about 18 years have elapsed. Injured and accused both belong to rural area. No injury was found grievous in nature. Social and economic status of revisionist is very poor. He is about 62 years old. He has served out about two months in jail. In the circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and lenient view may be taken against revisionist and he may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶12

¶13

Learned AGA opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old, hence a lenient view may be taken.

¶14

This Court in the case of Sukhbir and others vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 2905 of 1980 decided on 16.9.1999 and Supreme Court in Narayansingh Nathusingh vs. Natvarlal Hiralal Thakkar and another, (1981) 4 SCC 507 have reduced the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶15

In the case of Ved Ram and others vs. State of U.P., 2010(68) ACC 182 wherein appellants have already remained in jail for almost eight months and on being satisfied with the period of incarceration, the Court imposed additional fine of Rs.1000/- and altered conviction from under Section 307 IPC to under section 324/149 IPC.

¶16

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Kaisarbaig and others, (2018) 4 SCC 403 sentenced the appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.50,000/in addition to what has already been paid to the victim under Section 148/324/149 IPC.

¶17

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."

¶18

Considering the age, social & economic status, family background and gravity of offence against the accused, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him to jail at this stage and it would be appropriate and justified to reduce sentence awarded by the lower Court. Purpose would be served if he is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶19

The revision is partly allowed. Revisionist Vinod is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.1000/(Rupees one thousand) under Section 323 IPC and in default to deposit fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Fine shall be deposited within two months from today before the CJM concerned.

¶20

Office is directed to transmit copy of this order and the record of lower Court to the Court below immediately. Compliance report be submitted within three months which shall be kept on record.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.10.2018 P.P.

Vinod v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Sahai Vs State of U.P.

Jasvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Brij Kishore Mittal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others