Partly allowed

Ram Awadh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018CRLR/830/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 830 of 1991, Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari dealt with a case where revisionists sought to set aside conviction and alter sentences. The Court held that revisionists nos. 1 and 4 died, causing abatement. The revision against others was partly allowed, maintaining conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, relying on cited precedents regarding sentence cre

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionists; conviction maintained.

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

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 830 of 1991

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Awadh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjiv Ratans,Balwant Singh,Hanuman Deen,Nishi Mehrotra(A.C.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramanuj Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist no.2, Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae for revisionist no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Vide order dated 6.7.2016, it is clearly mentioned that on the basis of office report dated 5.7.2016 and report of Incharge C.J.M., Basti, it is stated that revisionist nos.1 and 4 have died.

¶7

Accordingly, the revision stands abated against revisionist no.1 and revisionist no.4

¶8

The present revision has been filed by the revisionists for setting aside the judgment and order dated 19.6.1991 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 1990 (Ram Awadh and others Vs. State of U.P.) partly allowing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 452 IPC against the appellants and further altering the order of conviction and sentence from 307/34 IPC to u/s 324 IPC against Hari Ram and to conviction u/s 324/34 IPC Against Ram Awadh, Sunder and Bisri and further setting aside the sentence awarded u/s 307/34 IPC and substituting by a sentence of two years R.I. u/s 324 and 324/34.

¶9

It` is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the injury report is highly contradicted by the eye witness account. He further submitted that revisionists had no motive to commit the alleged offence as they were not parties to the alleged 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding. He further submitted that the FIR has been anti-timed. He further submitted that the learned courts below have totally over looked the nature of injuries of Ram Sewak. He further submitted that conviction of the revisionist is against the weight of evidence on record and is bad in law. He further submitted that the learned courts below have erred in law not giving 'special reasons' for not giving benefit of Section-4 of the U.P. Probation of Ist Offenders Act.

¶10

Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionists have already

¶11

undergone certain period in jail and requested that their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the revisionist no.3 to assist the Court in this Criminal Revision. Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, Advocate, rendered valuable assistance to the Court. The Court quantifies Rs. 8,000/- to be paid to Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, Advocate towards fee in lieu of the assistance provided by him in Criminal Revision referred to above.

¶16

Office is directed to send the lower court record of this case to the Court below for necessary compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.12.2018 Junaid

Ram Awadh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Awadh 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakhawat Ali Vs State of U.P. and Others

Surendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Faqir Shah Vs State of U.P.

Lakhanchi Khatik Vs State of U.P.

Balwant Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Harish Vs State of U.P. and Another