Partly allowed

Bhim Sen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023CRLR/490/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 332, 504, and 506 IPC but modified the sentence. The Court enhanced the fines and directed the petitioner to pay them as compensation to the victim.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentence modified by enhancing fines; fines payable as compensation; remission of time already undergone.

Bhim Sen Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 490 of 2009

¶3

Revisionist :- Bhim Sen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

By means of the instant criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed the judgment and order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), District Shrawasti convicting the revisionist in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2007 titled as Bhim Sen vs. State of U.P. as well as the order of sentence dated 06.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti in Case No.1931 of 2005 (State of U.P. vs. Bhim Sen and another) arising out of Case Crime No.223 of 2003, under Sections 332, 504, 506 I.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 332 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo fifteen days' additional rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous

¶7

imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo ten days' additional rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. and in default of payment of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo fifteen days' additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶8

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the first informant, Ved Prakash Verma was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Dampurwa, District Shrawasti. According to an order passed by the State Government, students who were absent or failed in the examination were not to be given scholarship. Following the said order, students, namely, Nawal Kishore and Pankaj Kumar s/o Bhimsen were not been given scholarship because they were absent in class IInd examination. Due to aforesaid reason, the students' father Bhimsen and Ram Saran, present revisionist, came to school on 30.09.2003 at about 9:00 A.M., hurled abuses, beaten and dragged the first informant. When other students raised alarm, the accused persons fled away from the spot.

¶9

On the basis of aforesaid written report, a first information report, Ext. Ka-5 was registered against the revisionist at Police Station Sonwa,

¶10

District Shrawasti.

¶11

Investigating OfÏcer, undertook the investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan thereof as Ex. Ka-3. Upon conclusion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet as Ex. Ka-4 against the revisionist.

¶12

The revisionist/accused was charged under Section 332, 504 and 506 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶13

In order to bring home guilt of revisionist, the prosecution has examined five prosecution witnesses, PW-1, Ved Prakash Verma, PW-2, Sobharam, PW-3, Dr. N.A. Ansari, PW-4, S.I. Kaliprasad Gaud and PW-5, Constable Dukhiram.

¶14

The statement of revisionist was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement, the revisionist has denied the allegations levelled against him. He has stated the prosecution story to be false and concocted.

¶15

No defence was adduced by the revisionist before the trial Court.

¶16

Learned trial Court convicted the revisionist by means of impugned order dated 03.08.2009 and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this criminal revision.

¶17

Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist

¶18

has submitted that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The finding of guilt of the accused-revisionist is against the weight of evidence. His further submission is that no offence under Section 332, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is made out against the accused-revisionist as no ingredients thereof have been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution failed to place correct prosecution version before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court also did not take care of material contradictions appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses. He, while concluding his arguments, has fairly admitted that keeping in view the fact that the alleged incident took place on 30.09.2003, which came to be decided by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2007, after about 4 years. The revisionist has, thus, undergone a traumatic phase of about 19 years. Therefore, he has submitted that he would not dispute the impugned judgment whereby the revisionist has been held guilty. However, he has submitted that the fact remains that the injured and the revisionist have undergone a long traumatic phase of about 19 years since the date of incident. Therefore, the revisionist may be sentenced to fine only.

¶19

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist. He submits that the accused-revisionist has been convicted by the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available against them.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the revisionist on the basis of cogent evidence. The revisionist has been convicted by the impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2009 which is well discussed and reasoned, wherein no interference by this Court is warranted. However, he is unable to dispute the other factual submission advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon close scrutiny of record including testimonies of prosecution witnesses, this Court finds that the first informant, Ved Prakash Verma has been examined as PW-1, and PW-2, Sobharam, who in their testimony supported the prosecution case in all material aspects. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. Thus, the conviction of the accused-revisionist under Section Sections 332, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is afÏrmed. However, sentence, as indicated above, is liable to be modified.

¶22

The upshot of aforesaid discussion is that the conviction of the the accused-revisionist under Sections 332, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is afÏrmed, however, the sentence is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.1,000/imposed by the trial court under Section 332 I.P.C. is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo

¶23

one month's additional simple imprisonment. The fine of Rs.500/- awarded by the trial court under Section 504 I.P.C. is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo two months' additional simple imprisonment. The fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the trial court under Section 506 I.P.C. is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment. The revisionist is directed to deposit the aforesaid fine within two months from today.

¶24

The learned trial Court shall remit the amount of fine so deposited by the revisionist to the victim as compensation. In case, victim is found to be dead, the same shall be given to his heir(s).

¶25

If the amount of fine is not deposited within the stipulated period, the revisionist will undergo the sentence as awarded by learned trial Court by means of impugned order. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bond is canceled. Sureties are discharged. He need not surrender, in case, he is not wanted in any other case.

¶26

With the above modification, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed.

¶27

In compliance of the provision contained in Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused-revisionist is directed to furnish personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned within a period of six weeks from today.

¶28

A copy of this order be communicated to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance through e-mail/fax.

¶29

Record of learned trial court, if any, be sent to the learned trial court concerned immediately.

¶30

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶31

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 cks/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhim Sen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Sen 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Dharmendra Mishra @ Mukunde Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Civil Sect. Lko and Another

Aman Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Hardwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another