Partly allowed

Bhanu Pratap v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2019CRLR/1647/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the sentence of life imprisonment passed in 2003 should be modified to the period already undergone. Directed payment of compensation of Rs. 12,000 each to injured parties and explained that failure to deposit fine would result in serving the remainder of the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to period undergone; fine of Rs. 12,000 each deposited to injured parties.

Bhanu Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1647 of 2003 Revisionist :- Bhanu Pratap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- V.K. Agnihotry Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶2

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶3

The Criminal Revision has been filed against the order and judgment dated 5.06.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1999 (Bhanu Pratap and others Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. Police Station- Bithari Chainpur Bareilly..

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State and perused the record.

¶5

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 2003 which has been heard today after laps of more than 15 years, hence in these circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to them for the period undergone alongwith fine.

¶6

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.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith case law cited above, I am of the view that sentence part of the impugned order dated 5.06.2003 is desired to be modified suitably. For the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period of sentence undergone and compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. of Rs. 12,000/- each, which will be deposited by him within 3 months from today.

¶8

It is further directed that from the fine of Rs. 12000/- deposited by the revisionist in compliance of this order, Rs. 4,000/- will be paid in favour of each injured i.e.Rakshpal, Baburam and Ram Swaroop in the present case (in case of their death it will be paid in favour of their legal representatives/heirs) under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

¶9

In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above, they will serve out the remainder of sentence.

¶10

A copy of this order be communicated to the trial concerned for necessary compliance.

¶11

The revision is disposed of to the aforesaid extent..

¶12

Order Date :- 6.2.2019 / A. Pt. Singh

Bhanu Pratap v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Satyavir Vs State of U.P.

Arshad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Santosh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bishambhar Nath Tewari Vs State of U.P.

Rahmat Uttah Vs Mohd. Bakridi and Another