Partly allowed

Samayding and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2019CRLR/2534/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition filed against a 2003 conviction order heard after a 15-year lapse. The Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone, imposed a collective compensation of Rs. 10,000, and directed that any unpaid sentence term be served upon default.

What did the court decide?

The sentence is modified to the period already undergone; Rs. 10,000 compensation directed to be deposited; failure to comply warrants service of the remainder of the sentence.

Samayding and Others Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2534 of 2003

¶3

Revisionist :- Samaydeen And Others. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Jokhan Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The Criminal Revision has been filed against the order and judgment dated 30.8.2003 and 4.4.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Basti and by Judicial Magistrate Ist Basti convicting the revisionist No. 1 under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentencing him for 6 years imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 1000 on him and in case of default the revisionist no. 1 has to undergone 1and 1/2 months additional imprisonment and convicting the revisionist no. 2, Ram Sewak under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentencing him for a period of three months simple imprisonment.

¶6

Heard Sri D.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that matter is very old and he prays only with regard to the sentence. The revisionists 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.

¶8

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 revisionists to the period already undergone alongwith fine. In case this Hon'ble Court finds it desirable to enhance the fine, the revisionists will not treat the same as enhancement of sentence.

¶9

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 30.8.2003 is desired to be modified suitably. However, there are 2 living revisionists and for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionists are sentenced for the period of sentence undergone and fine, if any, awarded by the court below and it is directed to the each revisionists to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the injured, Ram Jas and Radhika i.e. total amount of compensation is Rs. 10,000/-, which will be deposited by them within 3 months from today. Out of compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- each injured, Ram Jas and Radhika will get Rs. 5,000/- 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.

¶10

In case of failure to deposit the fine directed by the court below, if any, and

¶11

the compensation as directed above, they will serve out the remainder of sentence.

¶12

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

¶13

The revision is disposed of to the aforesaid extent.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.3.2019

¶15

A. Pt. Singh

Samayding and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samayding and Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankur Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anshul Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilshad Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaj Ram Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kunwar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.and Others

Lal Ji Vs State of U.P.