Tulsi v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
This Criminal Revision petition challenged the sentence imposed. The court, applying the principle of leniency from the cited Supreme Court case, modified the sentence to the period already undergone and directed the deposit of compensation of Rs. 5,000 under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
What did the court decide?
Sentence modified to period undergone; compensation of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited within three months.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1143 of 1992
Revisionist :- Tulsi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Naveen Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
The Criminal Revision has been filed against the order and judgment dated 15.07.1992 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1989 dismissing the appeal of the appellants arising out of judgment and order dated 22.6.1989 passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Kasganj, District - Etah under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. convicting the accused under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentencing him for six months R.I.
Heard Sri Omvir Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that matter is very old and he prays only with regard to the sentence. He further submitted that there is no serious injury. The revisionist has filed this revision against the impugned order passed by the court below in the year 1992 which has been heard today after laps of more than 25 years, hence in these circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to him for the period undergone alongwith fine.
Considering the law laid down by Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra (arising out of S.L.P. (CRl.) No. 6287 of 2011) , this Hon'ble court may take a view of leniency and graciously modified the sentence awarded to revisionist to the period already undergone alongwith fine. In case this Hon'ble Court finds it desirable to enhance the fine, the revisionist will not treat the same as enhancement of sentence.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded against the revisionist should be modified to reflect the period already undergone.
Whether compensation should be deposited under Section 357 Cr.P.C. in case of death of the injured.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Tulsi
Coram
Suresh Kumar Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/1143/1992
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court