Chunuwa vs State of U.P.

T.P. Garg, J.—Heard Sri R.S. Sharma, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned Counsel for both the parties have agreed that this revision may be disposed of finally at this stage itself.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has, at the outset not challenged the conviction of the applicant under Sections 323 and 437, I.P.C. on merits. He has simply prayed for reduction in substantive sentence on the grounds that the accused has been undergoing the ordeal of long trial lasting over the period of about 5-3/4 years.

In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel, the conviction of the applicant on both the counts is maintained. Even otherwise, the conviction of the applicant is based upon a sound appreciation of the entire evidence on record and is fully justified. Both the Courts below have sifted and scrutinised the entire evidence on record and have rightly believed the prosecution version and disbelieved that of the accused. The conviction of the applicant is thus maintained even on merits.

As regards the sentence suffice will it be to say that the applicant has been undergoing the ordeal of a long trial lasting over a period of about 6 years during which, he must have suffered acute mental agony and pain besides financial hardship. He has already remained in jail for a period about 17 days.

In my opinion, ends of justice will be amply met if the period of substantive sentence is reduced from three months to that already undergone on both the counts. Sentence of fine and in default of payment thereof is, however, maintained.

On the aforesaid modification/reduction in the sentence, this petition fails and is dismissed.