Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2004 DIGILAW 1204 (SC)

State Of U. P. v. NANKAU PRASAD MISRA

2004-09-13

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2004
ORDER 1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This is yet another order from the same learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby, maintaining the convictions, the sentences have been reduced to the period already undergone in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, besides inflicting fine. The same order has also been made in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. For offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, the trial court had sentenced the respondent Raj Narain for a period of five years and for offence under Section 324, respondent Nankau Prasad Misra was sentenced for one year and for five years for the offence under Section 304 Part II. Further, the respondents Rajesh Misra and Raj Narain were sentenced for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for one year which too has been reduced to the period already undergone and fine was imposed. Their sentence of five years in respect of offence under Section 304 Part II has also been reduced to the period already undergone. In the judgment under challenge, neither has it been stated as to how much sentence had already been undergone by the accused nor any other special circumstances stated except stating that considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as age, character and other antecedents, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the accused is modified and reduced. 4. We have come across a number of similar orders having been passed by the learned Judge without any application of mind. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1995 for its fresh decision by the High Court. We request the learned Chief Justice of the High Court to list the appeal before a learned Judge other than the Judge who passed the impugned judgment. The High Court would do well to expeditiously decide the appeal since it is already about nine years old. 5. The accused should surrender to custody and seek bail from the High Court, if so advised. 6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.