Partly allowed

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2018CRLR/821/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal revision partly to reduce the sentence of convicted revisionists aged 31 years ineligible for fresh rigorous imprisonment. Orders substituted rigorous imprisonment with simple imprisonment and directed deposit of fine.

What did the court decide?

Convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment instead of rigorous; directed to deposit fine within two months.

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 821 of 1997

¶3

Revisionist :- Vinod Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Srivastava,Anshul Kumar Singhal,Vinod Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal,learned counsel for revisionist and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 4.7.1997 passed by IIIrd Additional District & sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.79/96 sentencing applicant/revisionists to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 332 IPC and further imposing fine of Rs.1000/- against each revisionist under Section 427 IPC and in case of default in deposit of fine, one month further rigorous imprisonment arising out of judgment and order dated 3.9.1996 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Case No. 1897/90/88(State vs. Vinod Kumar and others) convicting and sentencing applicants/revisionists including Bahadur Chand to undergo two years' rigorouos imprisonment under Section 332 IPC and one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 426 IPC. Both the sentences to run concurrently.

¶7

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against three accused Vinod Kumar, Surendra Kumar and Bahadur Chand alleging that on 8.12.1987 at 10:15 A.M. They assaulted Virendra Kumar, Inspector. He received to contused swelling on back of his body.

¶8

Case was registered. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. After framing of charge, prosecution examined P.W.1 Om Prakash, P.W.-2 Virendra Kumar, P.W.-3 Hukam Singh, P.W.-4 R.K. Kapoor and P.W.5 S.I. Mewaram Sagar. They proved documentary evidence as well as allegation alleged in the FIR. Statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing parties Bahadur Chand was acquitted and Vinod Kumar and Surendra Kumar were convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 332 IPC, and fine of Rs.1000/under Section 427 IPC and in case of default in deposit of fine, one month further rigorous imprisonment.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionists argued only on the point of sentence and submitted that the incident is of year 1987, 31 years have elapsed, revisionists are very old aged persons and no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them to jail. It is further submitted that revisionists are businessmen having no criminal history and they are ready to deposit fine before trial Court/appellate Court, hence lenient view may be taken against revisionists and they may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine awarded by the appellate Court.

¶10

Considering the age, civil status, family background and injury received by injured in the incident, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending revisionists to jail at this stage and it would be appropriate and justified to reduce sentence awarded by trial Court as well as appellate Court. Purpose would be served if they are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine awarded by the appellate Court.

¶11

The revision is partly allowed . Revisionists Vinod Kumar and Surendra Kumar are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 332 IPC and in default to deposit fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further they are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 427 IPC and in default of deposit of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Revisionists are directed to deposit the fine within two months.

¶12

Copy of this judgment alongwith original record of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within three month. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.7.2018

¶14

P.P.

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.

Aas Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vikki Vs State of U.P.

Kala Nath Alias Kali Charan Vs State of U.P.

Nanhu Vs State of U.P.