Partly allowed

Rajendra Prasad @ Rajan v. State and Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2019CRLR/813/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition, filed by convicted accused persons aggrieved by an appellate order confirming their conviction, sought reduction of sentence due to the long lapse of time from 1988 to 2019. The court upheld the convictions but reduced the imprisonment terms to the period already undergone, ordering a fine instead.

What did the court decide?

Sentences reduced to period already undergone; each appellant sentenced to fine of Rs. 2,000/- payable within four months.

Rajendra Prasad @ Rajan Vs State and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 813 of 1992 Revisionist :- Rajendra Prasad @ Rajan and another Opposite Party :- State And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Y.K. Shukla,Pt. S.P. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Sonu Kumar Tiwari

¶2

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶3

Heard Sri S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for revisionist, Sri Sonu Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶4

Brief facts giving rise to present revision is that on 09.04.1988 at about 04:00 p.m. complainant was preparing Wheel of his Bullock Cart and his son was in hedge, accused Rajendra armed with Lathi, his brother accused Jai Jai and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi came there; they all started abusing; son of complainant asking him not to fix hedge there. Complainant forbid them, accused persons tried to assault the complainant, who entered his Kotha was brought out by accused beating him. Complainant and his wife Ramkali tried to save their son; they were also beaten by accused persons.

¶5

The record reveals that after a conclusion of trial, Trial Court convicted the accused persons Rajendra and Jai Jai sentencing them under Section 323 IPC to undergo three months R.I., under Section 452 IPC six months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 506 IPC three months R.I. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month R.I. Accused-revisionist no.3 has been convicted under Section 323 IPC, fine of Rs.500/- sentencing her to pay and in default of payment, one month R.I, under Sections 452, 506 and 379 IPC fine of Rs.500/- in each section. In default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month R.I. under each offence and till rising of Court under Section 452 IPC.

¶6

In appeal their against, Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirm the conviction of appellant.

¶7

Feeling aggrieved with the order of Appellate Court, all three accused persons filed this revision.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionists fairly submitted that it is very difficult to assail the finding of conviction, there is no scope to interfere on the basis of merit regarding conviction, he does not want to press the revision on merit but he prayed that after a lapse of so long time, sentence awarded by the Court below may be reduced to the period already undergone. He

¶9

further prayed that after a lapse of so long time, sending the accused-revisionists back to Jail would not serve the useful purpose.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists by stating that under the circumstances in which occurrence took place, sentence awarded by the courts below appears fit and proper.

¶11

Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire evidence available on record. I find that after a proper scrutiny of evidence trial court as well as appellate court found the accused guilty of the aforesaid sections and I do not find any good ground to interfere the conviction, therefore, conviction of revisionist Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC and revisionist No.3 under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 379 IPC are confirmed.

¶12

So far as sentence of revisionists are concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that proceeding before the court below was commenced in 1988. The surviving accused-revisionists before this court must have aged by now. There is nothing on record to show that accused-revisionists have misused the liberty of bail.

¶14

After lapse of long time, I do not think it proper to send the surviving accused-revisionists in jail again. I am of the view that if the sentences of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone with fine, it would meet the ends of justice.

¶15

It is ordered that the accused-revisionists, namely, Rajendra Prasad @ Rajan, Jai Jai and Smt. Shanti Devi are sentenced to rigours imprisonment for a period already under gone and to fine of Rs. 2,000/- each to be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of four months from today. In case, any fine is already deposited, the same shall be adjusted. Failing which Trial Court shall take necessary action to recover the same.

¶16

The revision is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.2.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Rajendra Prasad @ Rajan v. State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad @ Rajan v. State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Azmal Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Qashim Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

State Vs Dharam Das

Smt. Vijai Laxmi Alias Bachanu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Others