Liyaqat Ali Khan vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the revision is disposed of at the admission stage.

This Criminal Revision u/s 397(1)/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') has been preferred by the accused-revisionist-Liyaqat Ali Khan against the judgment and order dated 07.4.2008 passed by Sri Seth T.N. Tandon, the then XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 55 1996 (Liyaqat Ali Khan v. State of U.P.) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 14.8.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Criminal Case No. 2949/95 (State v. Liyaqat Ali Khan) arising out of Crime No. 1908/95, u/s 498-A IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held the accused guilty u/s 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

The relevant facts giving rise to the present revision may be summarized as under:

Qyamuddin (P.W. 2) on 12.11.1985 at about 18:10 hrs. lodged a written report (Ext. 1) at P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Faizabad with the allegation that he had married his sister Asifun Nisha to the accused-Liyaqat Ali Khan, S/o Mohd. Musharraf, R/o 103, Mohalla Rishi Tola, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabads sometimes nine months back prior to the date of incident. He had spent amount on presents and dowry as per his financial capacity but when his sister went to her matrimonial home, her husband and his family members expressed their dissatisfaction over the dowry he had presented. They put a fresh demand of motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- in cash from her in the form of dowry. The complainant on 12.11.1985 had gone to the house of accused but the accused did not permit his sister to meet him. They had illegally confined her in a room and they were adamant to kill her for dowry. On the written report of the complainant, the police of P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad registered a case u/s 498-A IPC. Sri Krishna Gopal Tripathi, the then Section I., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad investigated the case. He after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-2) against the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court. He was charged by the Trial Court u/s 498-A IPC. The accused had denied the charge levelled in the trial. The prosecution in support of charge levelled against the accused had examined Khan Mohammad as P.W. 1, Quamuddin as P.W. 2, Asifun Nishan as P.W. 3 and Sri Krishan Gopal Tiwari, Section I. as P.W. 4. P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 fully supported the prosecution case while Sri Krishan Gopal Tiwari, Section I. (P.W. 4) who was the Investigating Officer proved the papers prepared by him during the investigation and was filed before the Trial Court. The accused thereafter examined by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate u/s 313 of the Code. He had stated that the prosecution witnesses had given false statement against him. He, however, examined Aqeel Ahmad as D.W. 1. The learned Magistrate after proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in a well considered judgment held that the accused was guilty for the offence u/s 498-A IPC and consequently vide judgment and order dated 14.8.1996 convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1996 before the learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad which was dismissed by the learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad vide judgment and order dated 17th April, 1998.

The accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge has filed the present Criminal Revision.

As regards, the finding of the conviction of the accused-revisionist by both the courts below, both the Courts below after careful examination of the statement of prosecution witnesses found their statements reliable and cogent consequently on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution held the accused guilty u/s 498-A IPC. This Court in revision while invoking its revisonal power u/s 397 of the Code will not disturb the finding of the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court unless the finding is perversed. This Court being revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence at this stage; rather at this stage this Court can only see as to whether the finding of the both the Courts below is perversed i.e. against the evidence on record or not.

Learned Counsel for the accused-revisionist failed to show any perversity in the impugned order passed by the both the courts below.

The findings of both the courts below that the accused was held guilty is based on proper appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution which does not call for any interference.

As regards, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the accused, the submission of learned Counsel for the accused-revisionist is that the case relates as back as 24 years i.e. 1985. The Trial Court delivered the judgment on 14.8.1996 and the criminal appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed on 17.4.1998. This is one of the oldest cases. The accused has already been penalised on account of long dragged litigation. He has already spent a lot of money and his precious time too. He is already paying maintenance allowance to his wife-Asifun Nishan. After such a long dragged litigation, if the accused is ordered to serve out the sentence it will be too harsh to him. During the period of his detention in jail, he will be unable to pay any maintenance allowance to his wife. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that keepinjg in view the long dragged litigation, facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of offence, it will be proper to modify the sentence awarded by the Trial Court reducing the sentence of imprisonment for one year to the period already undergone in jail and imposing fine to the accused which may be paid to his wife-Asifun Nishan which will be an additional financial assistance to her.

Learned A.G.A. although supported the judgment passed by both the courts but he has no objection in the modification of the sentence as requested by learned Counsel for the accused-revisionist.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Keeping in view the long dragged litigation, facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of offence, I am of the view that sending the accused to jail to serve out the sentence will not serve the fruitful purpose at this stage; rather I think it proper that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court may be modified by this Court reducing the sentence from one yer to the period already undergone by the accused in jail and imposing fine of Rs. 5, 000/- to him which may be paid to his wife-Asifun Nishan which will be additional financial assistance to her.

The revision is, therefore, partly allowed. The finding of conviction recorded by both the courts below is confirmed i.e. the judgment and order dated 14.8.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad and the judgment and order dated 17.4.1998 passed by the learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court is modified to the extent that the accused is sentenced to undergo the imprisonment of period already undergone by him in jail and he is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, he will undergo three months'' simple imprisonment.

The accused is allowed two months'' time from today to deposit the amount of fine imposed by this Court i.e. Rs. 5,000/- against the accused-revisionist in the Trial Court, failing which he will be arrested immediately after two months and sent to jail to serve out the sentence of three months'' simple imprisonment awarded by this Court.

The fine imposed by this Court will be paid to Asifun Nishan.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for strict compliance.