Karan Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—All the four applicants and one Smt. Rajwala were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149, I.P.C. Smt. Rajwala was released on probation. However, the applicants were awarded various terms of sentences by the judgment dated 19.12.1997 passed by the VI Ith A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad. Against that order, the applicants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1997, in which the conviction has been maintained. Applicants Karan Singh and Adesh have been sentenced to six months R.I. for the offence punishable u/s 148, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each. Applicants Anand and Subash have been convicted u/s 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to four months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each. All the four applicants have been sentenced to six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for offence u/s 323/149, I.P.C., one year''s R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for offence u/s 324/149, I.P.C. and two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 for offence u/s 325/149, I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, by an order dated 22.6.2000. Against that order, the present revision has been preferred.

I have heard Sri O. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri H. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant and the A.G.A. and have gone through the record.

The learned Counsel for the revisionists Sri O. P. Gupta has not challenged the conviction of the revisionists for the above offences. After perusing the judgments, I am of the view that the revisionists were rightly convicted. There are injuries, some of them were caused by sharp edged weapons and also grievous injuries. Therefore, I maintain the conviction of all the revisionists for the above offences.

Now coming to the sentences, it has been argued that the same are extremely severe and a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentences. It is contended that the incident took place on 10.4.1993. It is further contended that there is a dispute between the parties regarding a piece of land. That regarding that land a suit was filed, which was decreed and the appeal filed by the complainant has also been dismissed. Even then the complainant is disturbing in the possession of the applicants for the reason that he has filed second appeal in the High Court. Certified copy of the order has been filed which shows that the second appeal was dismissed on 24.8.1992, for want of prosecution. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that an application for restoration has been moved. However, all these facts show that the applicants are in possession of the said land.

In the circumstances, while maintaining the convictions, I modify the sentences and each of the revisionists is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period for which they had been in jail for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149, I.P.C. and to pay a fine as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. Therefore, the revisionists shall be released forthwith on deposit of fine. However, in absence of deposit of fine, they shall undergo imprisonment as awarded by the trial court.

With the above modification, the revision is disposed of finally.