Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1203 (ALL)

Ramesh Chandra v. State of U. P.

2014-04-15

VINOD PRASAD

body2014
JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad J.: - This revision was filed in the year 1988, twenty six years ago by three revisionists, Ramesh Chandra, Jognath and Rajjab, challenging their conviction under section 147, 323, 332, 336, 426 IPC recorded by Munsif Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur in criminal case No.593 of 1983, State Vs Ramesh Chandra and others relating to P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur, who was pleased to convict all the three revisionists for offences under sections 147, 323, 332, 336 and 426 IPC and the revisionists were sentenced to six months R.I. for each offences under sections 147, 323 IPC and were also sentenced to three months R.I. under sections 332, 336 and 426 IPC. Munsif Magistrate has directed all the sentences to run concurrently vide his judgment and order dated 17.11.87. 2. Revisionists unsuccessfully challenged to the aforesaid conviction and sentences in Criminal Appeal no.143 of 1987 before Sessions Judge, Fatehpur as vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.6.88 lower appellate court was pleased to dismiss their appeal and maintain their aforesaid conviction and sentences on all the five counts. This revision has therefore been filed questioning the conviction and sentence as aforesaid recorded by both the courts below. 3. In the revised list Sri I.M. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist is not present. In view of the Apex Court decision rendered in Madan Lal Kapoor Vs. Rajiv Thapar (2007) 7 SCC 623 , revision cannot be dismissed in default and, therefore with the help of Sri Rama Shanker Yadav, learned AGA, I have perused the revision and both the impugned judgments. 4. Record of this revision revealed that revisionist no.2 has expired and consequently this revision in his respect stands abated. 5. According to prosecution version on 28.4.1983 when the invigilators were carrying the answer copies of examinees of Sukdev Inter College Khaga along with examination Room Inspector then the revisionists along with other ruffian associates snatched away the answer sheets/copies, vetuperized and threatened them with their lives and had been pelted stones. With the help of present police personnel along with a police inspector, the revisionists were rounded up and were apprehended at the spot. 6. Examination Centre Incharge Sukdev Inter College, Khaga, Fatehpur lodged the report regarding aforesaid incident on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. With the help of present police personnel along with a police inspector, the revisionists were rounded up and were apprehended at the spot. 6. Examination Centre Incharge Sukdev Inter College, Khaga, Fatehpur lodged the report regarding aforesaid incident on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. Crime was investigated and ultimately accused persons were charge sheeted and were summoned to face trial for offences under section 147, 323, 336, 332, 426 IPC. During the trial they were charged with aforesaid offences, which they denied and claimed to be tried. 7. To establish its case prosecution examined P.W.1 Raja Singh Principal of Sukdev Inter College, Khaga, Satya Narain Dwivedi P.W.2, Dr. D.C. Rai P.W.3, Bachehli P.W.4 and S.I. Jagjeet Singh P.W.5. 8. In their depositions before the Court the fact witness P.W.1 Raja Singh Principal of Sukdev Inter College, Khaga supported the prosecution case in its entirety of snatching away the answer copies and pelting of stones and causing injuries and apprehension of the accused revisionists at the spot. In spite of searching cross examinations, accused had failed to get it elicited from him any material on the basis of which, his testimonies becomes suspicious or doubtful. He is an independent person who had no animus against the revisionists. It has come in his depositions that he did not know the accused since before nor they were students of his college. In his presence, the accused had torned of answer copies and had pelted stones. So is the statement of Satya Narain Dwivedi P.W.2 from whom the copies were snatched away by the revisionist accused persons. He has specifically named the three revisionists as the culprit miscreants, who had torned off the answer copies and had threw them on the road, vetuperized them and had pelted stones. He has further stated that because of the brickbats many police personnel and the shopkeepers had sustained injuries. This witness too was searchingly cross examined but the defence had failed to dislodge his testimonies as incredible and unbelievable. P.W. 2 too is an independent person, who had no axe to grind against the revisionists and therefore, his testimonies also can be brushed aside. This witness has further testified that the accused persons were attempting to get mass copying done in the examination and because their attempt was thwarted that, motivated because of that, they had indulged into in the present crime. Dr. This witness has further testified that the accused persons were attempting to get mass copying done in the examination and because their attempt was thwarted that, motivated because of that, they had indulged into in the present crime. Dr. D.C. Rai P.W.3 examined injured namely Surendra Bahadur Singh, S.C. Shukla, Bachehli, Jagannath, Rajjan and Ramesh Chandra. Surendra Bahadur Singh had sustained three contusion on the shoulder, right leg and on the thigh. S.C. Shukla had sustained four contusions on the shoulder, on the right arm and on the thigh. Bachehli had sustained a lacerated wound on his left leg. Jagannath had sustained two contusions and one abrasion on the hand finger and on the palm. Rajjan had sustained two lacerated wounds, two abrasions and a contusion. Ramesh Chandra had sustained two contusions. Their medical examination reports have been duly proved by the doctor, who had examined them on 28.4.83. Defence has not been able to discredit the testimonies of the doctor. Presence of these injured persons at the spot cannot be doubted. Bachehli one of the injured has been examined as P.W.4, who has supported the prosecution version and depositions of his predecessor fact witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their entirety without spelling out any other wise evidence to caste a doubt on the testimonies of all the fact witnesses. He has supported the prosecution case of spot arrest of revisionists accused. Last prosecution witness S.I. Jagjeet Singh has testified various investigatory steps taken by him during investigation of the crime and the defence has not been able to fathom out any damaging evidence. 9. In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., the only defence taken by the revisionists were the enmity but they failed to lead any defence evidence to support their claim. 10. Learned trial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 17.1187 found the prosecution case established against the revisionists to hilt and, therefore, was pleased to convict them for offences under sections 147, 323, 332, 336 and 426 IPC and sentence them as has already been recored herein above. Challenge was made abortively before the learned Sessions Judge to the aforesaid recorded conviction and sentence by the learned trial Magistrate in criminal appeal referred to above, as the appeal too was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur vide impuged judgment and order dated 10.6.88. 11. Challenge was made abortively before the learned Sessions Judge to the aforesaid recorded conviction and sentence by the learned trial Magistrate in criminal appeal referred to above, as the appeal too was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur vide impuged judgment and order dated 10.6.88. 11. After perusing the record with the help of learned AGA in the absence of counsel for the revisionists, I find no error in the examination and analysis of evidences by both the courts below. In the memo of revision, no legal ground has been urged by the revisionists. All the contentions referred to in the memo of revision are concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. No illegality or infirmity is mentioned and has been taken as a ground in the present revision. It is trite law too well settled that in revision reappreciation of evidence is impermissible unless shown to be perverse nor borne out from the record, which is not the case in present revision. 12. I do not find any merit in this revision and, therefore, dismissed it confirming the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentences. 13. The revisionists were allowed bail by this Court at the time of admission of this revision on 4.7.88. Their personal and surety bonds are cancelled, learned trial Magistrate is directed to issue non bailable warrant of arrest against them, get them arrested and lodged them in jail to serve out remaining part of their sentence. 14. Revision is dismissed as above.