In this criminal revision, the High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 451 of IPC but reduced the jail term to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs. 5,000, citing delay and already served time.
Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000 with one month time to deposit.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2005
APPLICANT
Prabhakar Reddy
VERSUS
RESPONDENT
State of Chhattisgarh
POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT ON
ON 6 November 2016g SdlAnilKumarShukla Judge
®
NAF R
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2005 Judgment reserved on: 27.10.2016 Judgment delivered on,:_Q¢3.1 1 .2016
Prabhakar Reddy Son of Kamraju Telgu, Aged about 28 years, resident of Borgagu, District Vijaywada (AndhraPradesh)Presently residing at Teblarshed Rajhara, Poiice"StetiOn Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
, State of Chhattisgarh through Poli'Ce Station lncharge, Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Applicant v:'Mr. R. K. Jain, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Shukla
C A V Judgment
Y
f l
- The prosecution case, in short, is that on 06.10.2001 at about 2 pm the applicant rammed into the house of Punuram using tilthy language and holding a knife in his hand; when he did not find Punuram there in his house, he caught, hold of his daughter, namely, Shivkumari intent to kill her. When Shivkumari shouted loudly, the applicant left her and ranaway and the same was witnesses by other - witnesses. Complainant-Shivkumari (PW— 1) lodged First Information Report vide Ex.P/1 against the, applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 294,‘452.andj506'(-B) of IPC, thereafter the applicant was arrested and a knife was seized from him.
l:
supported the case of the prosecution; the matter is pending for about 11 yearsandthe applicant has remained in jail near about 15 days, therefore, the applicant cannot be sent back to jail again. He further submits that he is not pressing the conviction partimposed upon the applicant and would confine his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that sentence of fine amount awarded by the learned trial Courtrmay be enhanced: and the jailsentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent, SUpported' the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Judge and pleaded that after appreciating the evidence available on record, the Court below has rightly convicted a and sentenced the applicant as'aforementioned.
10.‘ In the result, the revision is partlyallowed. Conviction of the applicant under‘Section 451 is hereby affirmed. However, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period a/ireagw
., ..
undergone by him and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.250/— to Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable underSection451 of the IPC. The applicant is granted 1 month time to deposit the fine amount, failing which, he shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonmentfora month. If any amount has already been deposited towards fine, the same shall be adjusted towards theamountoffineimposed/enhanced/X \ \
by this Court toda y.
Sd/-
.‘V
l AnilKumar Shukla
li ll Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision should be allowed and the sentence modified.
Whether the fine and jail term should be enhanced or reduced.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabhakar Reddy
State of Chhattisgarh
Anil Kumar Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
