High Court revised an appeal against sentencing in a sexual offence case. Conviction was confirmed. Court reduced sentence to period already undergone and imposed a fine payable partly to state and partly to victim.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs. 20,000 with Rs. 15,000 to victim.
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. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4655 of 2019
Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
good ground to interfere the conviction, therefore, conviction of revisionist under Sections 354 IPC is confirmed.
Order Date :- 12.12.2019 I.A.Siddiqui
3 issues framed by the court
Whether convicted accused deserves reduction in sentence after long pendency because he has already undergone the awarded term.
Whether fine should be imposed in lieu of jail sentence to meet ends of justice.
Whether conviction under Section 354 IPC should be confirmed or set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Kumar
State Of U.P.
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
