Partly allowed

Din Mohd. and Others v. State

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2018CRLR/764/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision challenged the conviction for voluntary culpable hurt and common intention. The High Court upheld the conviction but moderated the sentence to match the time already served by the appellants pending bail, conditional upon fine payment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; revisionists must deposit fine of Rs. 2,000 within one month or face arrest.

Din Mohd. and Others Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 764 of 1992

¶3

Revisionist :- Din Mohd. & Others Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present revision has been filed by the revisionists for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5.5.1992 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1990 whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed affirming the judgment and order dated 20.8.1990 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun convicting the revisionists to undergo one year R.I. Under Section 324/34, two years R.I. Under Section 325/34, six months R.I. Under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in case of default to further undergo for one month's R.I., in Case No. 80 of 1988 arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 1987, under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the the statements given by the prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other. There is contradiction between the version of the complainant in the F.I.R. and medical report. It is further submitted that according to the medical report, all the injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature. There was no motive and intention of the revisionist to commit the alleged offence. It is next submitted that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity which is admitted by the complainant as well as prosecution witnesses. It is next submitted that the courts below have illegally convicted the revisionists without considering the evidence on record.

¶8

The learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180 as well as of this Court in the case of Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011 decided on 31 October, 2011, Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010 decided on May 29th May, 2012 and Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005 decided on 4th August, 2014, in which, Apex Court as well as of this Court without disturbing conviction, released the accused on the basis of sentence undergone.

¶9

Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionists are on bail and have already undergone certain period in jail and requested that their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is partly allowed maintaining the conviction of revisionists, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 2,000 within one month from today, failing which the revisionists shall be arrested by the police and sent to jail for serving out the remaining sentence awarded to them.

¶12

Order Date :- 3.12.2018 Rmk.

Din Mohd. and Others v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Din Mohd. and Others v. State

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

Murari and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Budhraj Vs State

Daya Ram Alias Dasai Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Kapoor Vs Jugal Kishore and Ors.