Partly allowed

Sukhpal Singh v. State

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2021CRLR/556/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned delay in filing a criminal revision. After hearing arguments from the revisionist of advanced age who had already served part of the sentence, the Court modified the conviction verdict while maintaining imprisonment, reducing the sentence to the period already served and imposing a fine of Rs. 2500/-.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence modified to period undergone with additional fine of Rs. 2500/- and immediate release.

Sukhpal Singh Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 556 of 1995

¶3

Revisionist :- Sukhpal Singh Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- S.D. Kautilya,Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- .../Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Ref: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2021

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am satisfied that the revisionist was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the revision within the period of limitation.

¶8

The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the recall application is hereby condoned.

¶9

Ref: Criminal Misc. Recall Application No. 2 of 2021

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed . Order dated 13.09.2019 is hereby recalled and the revision is restored to its original number in the light of order dated 16.11.2020 passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 750-751 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 4292-4293 of 2020 (Parveen vs. State of Haryana).

¶12

Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 4 of 2021

¶13

Bail application of the applicant is dismissed as infructuous.

¶14

Order on Criminal Revision

¶15

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶16

The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 4.3.1995 passed by Sessions Judge,

¶17

Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1993, under Section 324 I.P.C. confirming the judgement and order dated 22.4.1993 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in case crime no. 14 of 1991, under Section 307 I.P.C. by reducing the sentence from 3 years to 2 years.

¶18

Counsel for revisionist submitted that during trial, revisionist was in jail for twelve days, after conviction for four months and presently he is in jail from 6.2.2021, total five months twenty five days. Lastly, counsel for the revisionist at the very outset stated that he is not assailing judgment of the Courts below on merits, but is seeking mercy stating that this is an old matter and accused-revisionist is now attained advance age, therefore, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶19

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances and also the fact that accused-revisionist has attained advance age and had already undergone the sentence for five months twenty five days, while maintaining the conviction, I am inclined to reduce sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone though a fine of Rs. 2500/- is imposed.

¶20

Accordingly, Revision in respect of Revisionist is partly allowed . Conviction of accused-revisionist is maintained, but, sentence awarded by Trial Court is modified and reduced to the extent of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by accused-revisionist though a fine of Rs. 2500/- is imposed. The revisionist be released from jail forthwith subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 2500/-.

¶21

Certify the judgment to the Court below immediately. Order Date :- 15.3.2021 Arvind

Sukhpal Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhpal Singh v. State

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

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Rai Vs the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division and Another

Reyazul Vs State of U.P.

Akil Vs State of U.P.

Muheed @ Dela Vs State of U.P.

Arnesh @ Nanku Vs State of U.P.