Durga and Others vs State of U.P.

N.S. Gupta, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.6.84, passed by K.P. Nigam, the then v. Ith Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1984, confirming the judgment and order of the Ist Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur in Case No. 202 of 1983, convicting the accused revisionists u/s 323, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each and in default of the payment of the same to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month each.

The prosecution case is that on 5.6.81 at about 7.00 a.m. in village Kalim Khanpur, P.S. Zafarganj, district Fatehpur, the accused-revisionists were cutting the wall of the house of the complainant and when the complainant objected to the same the accused-revisionists abused him and assaulted the complainant and his brother Shade Lal by means of lathi and danda and caused the following injuries:

Injuries of Chhote Lal:

Lacerated wound 21/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep on skull.

Contused swelling 5 cm. x 3 cm. on left forearm.

Contusion 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. on right hand little finger. Complain of pain in right shoulder.

Injuries of Shade Lal:

Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep on skull towards right.

After needful trial into the matter the accused-revisionists were convicted by the trial Magistrate. Their conviction and sentence were confirmed by the lower appellate court of v. Ith Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. Hence the revision.

I have heard Sri R.B. Sahai, learned Counsel for the revisionists and A.G.A. for State ; considered their contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case.

The case concluded by the finding of fact recorded by the two courts below on the point that the accused-revisionists were responsible for voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant Chhote Lal and his brother Shade Lal on the date and time of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. The contention of the prosecution in this behalf finds full corroboration by the medical evidence of Dr. V.K. Misra P.W. 5. As such, I find no impropriety or illegality in the approach of the lower appellate court in sustaining the conviction of the accused-revisionists as recorded by the trial Magistrate.

Coming on the point of sentence, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the accused-revisionists that the accused-revisionists have already undergone imprisonment for about a month or so during the course of trial. It was argued that the occurrence had taken place about 15 years back. The accused-revisionists have already suffered a lot of mental agony since then--the conviction remaining hanging over their heads. It was, therefore, urged that the period of imprisonment undergone by the accused-revisionists be considered as sufficient punishment.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the injuries found on the person of the complainant and his brother, I am of the opinion that it will meet the ends of justice, if the fine of Rs. 200 each inflicted by the trial Magistrate upon the accused-revisionists is enhanced to Rs. 500 each and the substantive sentence of period already undergone is taken as sufficient punishment. I accordingly direct that the punishment inflicted upon the accused-revisionists to the period already undergone plus a sum of Rs. 500 as fine and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a period of three months each be considered as sufficient punishment. Thus, the revision is partly allowed only to the aforesaid extent of sentence. Accused-revisionists are directed to deposit the amount of fine within a period of one month from the date of this order. With these observations the revision is dismissed.