Kewla Prasad vs State of U.P.

P.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri A.K. Varma, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri D.N. Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

Revisionist, Kewla Prasad, and three others were convicted under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 452, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, one year and six months respectively. Kewla Prasad, Daya Shankar and Avinash were further convicted u/s 324/34, I.P.C. and were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1984 filed by them was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad, vide judgment and order dated 22.8.1984.

Present criminal revision was filed on behalf of all the convicts but was admitted on behalf of Kewla Prasad only on the point of sentence. Revision on behalf of Daya Shankar, Avinash and Satish Chandra was rejected vide order dated 24.8.84.

As regards Kewla Prasad, it is contended that at the time of filing of the revision, he was 71 years old and he has already suffered imprisonment for about a month. There has been no untoward incident since after the present incident.

It is not disputed that Kewla Prasad was 71 years old at the time of filing of the revision and he must have been now 84 years old. Considering the age of the revisionist Kewla Prasad and the period for which he has already been in jail, I think a sentence of imprisonment already undergone shall meet the ends of justice.

Revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the revisionist, Kewla Prasad, on all counts, is upheld. Sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.