Awadhesh v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against conviction and sentence under IPC 411. Bench upheld conviction but reduced sentence to time already served, imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 instead of original fine.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order set aside; appellant sentenced to period already undergone with fine of Rs. 5,000;
What the court decided
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5326 of 2016
Appellant :- Awadhesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1-Heard Sri Sanjay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2- This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant-Awadhesh against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 / Special Judge D.A.A., Mahoba in Special Case No. 44 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 954 of 2009, under Sections 392 & 411 I.P.C., Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment and the period spent by the appellant in jail shall be adjusted. The appellant was acquitted under Section 392 I.P.C. read with Section 2-B of D.A.A. Act, 307/34 I.P.C. and 25 of Arms Act.
- On the point of conviction, the court below has given concurrent finding of fact and the view taken by the court below is a plausible view, hence no interference is called for in appeal.
- On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is 27-28 years of age. There is no criminal antecedent/criminal history against the appellant. The appellant belongs to the rural area. Recovery of one old motorcycle has been shown and he is very poor person, hence a lenient view may be taken against the appellant and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone and fine only.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's sentence under Section 411 IPC should be altered to the period already undergone with a reduced fine.
Whether the conviction under Section 392 IPC warrants interference on appeal.
Whether the appellant's rural background and lack of criminal antecedents justify a lenient sentence.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Awadhesh
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Aniruddha Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLA/5326/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court