Criminal revision challenging a conviction under Sections 323, 342 IPC. The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and dismissed the revision.
Revisions dismissed; stay order vacated; copy of order transmitted to the concerned court.
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. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 621 of 1995
Revisionist :- Raghubir & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Patanjali Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1-Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent and perused the record.
2-This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists challenging the order dated 3.4.1995 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Special Case No. 28 of 1993 (State Vs. Raghubir and others), under Sections 323, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. Act whereby the revisionists were convicted under Sections 323, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x) of S.C. & S.T. Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
3-In brief, the facts of the case are that on 31.1.1993 between 7 to 8 p.m., the revisionists assaulted Mannoo. He received eleven injuries. They are contusions and abrasions. A case was registered under Sections 323, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur. The prosecution produced six witnesses, namely, P.W.1-Mannoo, P.W.2- Hajari, P.W.3-Dr. A.K. Tripathi, P.W.4-Head Constable Balwant Singh, P.W.5-Ratan and P.W.6- S.I. Kamal Yadav in support of its case.
4-After recording the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the impugned order was passed and the revisionists were convicted under Sections 323, 342 I.P.C. and they were acquitted under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the Special Sessions Judge, Lalitpur. Hence this revision.
5- On the point of fact, injured-Mannoo has corroborated the prosecution version.
6- In the case of Jarnail Sing vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (6) Supreme 526, the Court has held that deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence
on the scene of incident established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident.
7- In the case of Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P., (1983) 1 SCC 218 , the Apex Court has held that presence of the injured witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of incident and they should normally be not disbelieved.
8-Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without application of mind.
9-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
10-On the point of sentence, maximum lenient view has been taken by the appellate court, hence no question arises for reducing the sentence of the revisionist sentencing the revisionist under Sections 323, 342 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.500/- only and the fine has already been deposited by the revisionists in the court concerned.
11-This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
12-Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
12-Copy of this order along with lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 OP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned conviction order by the Special Sessions Judge contains any illegality, arbitraryity, or lack of application of mind warranting revision interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jarnail Sing vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
Jarnail Sing vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (6) Supreme 526
Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P., (1983) 1 SCC 218 · Who else cites this
Raghubir & Others
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
