Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3254 (ALL)

Rakesh and Another v. State of U. P.

2010-10-21

RAJ MANI CHAUHAN

body2010
Raj Mani Chauhan, J.:- Heard the learned counsel for the accused-revisionists and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the impugned judgment and orders passed by the trial court. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397(1)/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been preferred by the accused-revisionists- Rakesh and Smt. Badkanni @ Nanki against the judgment and order dated 25.7.2000, passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 199; Rakesh and Another Vs. State of U.P., whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Vth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki vide order dated 08.4.1999 in Case No. 157 of 1997, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC arising out of the case Crime No. 216 of 1992, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki whereby the learned Vth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki has held the accused guilty under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them as under :- Under Section 498-A I.P.C.- Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each. Under Section 323 I.P.C.- Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Under Sections 504/506 I.P.C.- Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months under Section 498-A IPC. 4. As regards the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate as well as the appellate court, both the courts have found the statement of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as cogent and reliable which does not suffer from any inconsistency. This court as revisional court cannot go through the finding of the facts recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court unless there is perversity in the finding. The learned counsel for the accused revisionists failed to point out any perversity in the finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court. I, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of the conviction recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court. 5. The learned counsel for the accused revisionists failed to point out any perversity in the finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court. I, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of the conviction recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court. 5. As regards the sentence awarded by both the courts below, the submission of the learned counsel for the accused revisionists is that the so called incident relates back to the year 1992. The accused faced trial before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for 6 years thereafter they were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as mentioned above. The criminal appeal preferred by the accused before the learned Sessions Judge remained pending for more than one year. The accused have already undergone more than one month in jail. They have already suffered a lot in their long dragged litigation. Therefore no fruitful purpose will be served if the accused are sent to jail after lapse of 18 years. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of offence, ends of justice will be secured by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone in jail enhancing the amount of fine imposed by the Trial Court. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court and approved by the Appellate Court may be modified accordingly. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the revision and supported the judgment and order passed by both the courts below but he has no objection in reducing the sentence and enhancing the amount of fine. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offences and long dragged litigation, the ends of justice may be secured if the the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail enhancing the amount of fine imposed by the trial court to each accused from Rs. 1000/- under Section 498-A IPC to Rs. 5,000/-. 9. 1000/- under Section 498-A IPC to Rs. 5,000/-. 9. The revision is, therefore, partly allowed and the sentence awarded by the trial court is modified as follows: "The accused are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by them under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC in jail and each of them are ordered to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 498-A and in default of payment of fine, each accused are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months." 10. The accused revisionists are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. They are allowed 40 days time from today to deposit the amount of fine imposed by this court i.e. Rs. 5,000/- against each accused in the Trial Court, failing which they will be arrested immediately after the expiration of 40 days from today and will be sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by this Court in lieu of non payment of fine. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for strict compliance.