Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4092 (ALL)

BRAHM DEO v. STATE

2016-12-19

MUKHTAR AHMAD

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mukhtar Ahmad, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.12.1985 passed by learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Mirzapur in S.T. No. 3 of 1985 (State v. Shiromani and 3 others), whereby the accused persons have been convicted and awarded sentence under Section 324 IPC with two year Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default speculation. However, they were acquitted under Section 307 IPC. 2. I have heard Sri Mukhtar Alam and Sri Raj Narain Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has confined his submission only to challenge the quantum of punishment. He is not challenging the conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 324 IPC. It has been submitted by him that the occurrence had taken place on 13.6.1984.The appellants were granted bail and presently they are on bail. Next contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 6 months. Learned Counsel has also submitted that sending the accused persons back to Jail would be more harsh and the interest of justice requires that if the order in respect to quantum of punishment is modified considering the facts and circumstances of the case, then it would serve the ends of justice. Learned Counsel to strengthen his submission has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Dash Mani Shukla and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(2) JIC 970 (All) and Dannoo and another v. State of U.P., 1999 (1) JIC 851 (Alld). 4. Learned AGA has opposed the arguments. However, it is not disputed that the appellants have already spent six months rigorous imprisonment. 5. I have given thorough consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. The prayer may be accepted modifying the order of sentence considering the period already undergone as sufficient to meet the ends of justice and the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/- from each of the appellant. In default of payment of fine, the rigorous imprisonment as was directed by learned Trial Court will survive. 6. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction awarded by learned Trial Court is upheld. However, the order of sentence is modified upto the extent of period already undergone and payment of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/- from each of the appellant. In default of payment of fine, the rigorous imprisonment as was directed by learned Trial Court will survive. 6. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction awarded by learned Trial Court is upheld. However, the order of sentence is modified upto the extent of period already undergone and payment of Rs. 10,000/- by each of the appellant within a period of one month from today.