Lok Bahadur and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

This revision is finally disposed of in agreement with both the sides.

The revisionists have challenged their convictions and sentences recorded by A.C.J.M., Allahabad in Case No. 6462 of 2002, State v. Lok Bahadur and others, under Sections 325, 323 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Phoolpur, district Allahabad relating to Crime No. 166 of 1992 vide his order dated 27.10.2004. The trial court had convicted the revisionists for offences u/s 323/34, I.P.C. and had sentenced them to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. It had allowed ten days time for depositing the fine so awarded. Aggrieved by aforesaid judgment of convictions and sentences passed in the aforesaid Case No. 6462 of 2002, the revisionists preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad as Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2004, Lok Bahadur and Ors. v. State of U.P. The said appeal was heard and was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Allahabad vide its order dated 7.8.2006. Hence this revision challenging the said convictions and sentences.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. at a great length and have gone through both the impugned judgments.

So far as the merits of the matter is concerned, learned Counsel for the revisionists fairly conceded that the findings record by both the courts below does not suffer from any illegality and consequently he did not challenge the merits of the matter at all. Hence so far as conviction of the revisionists u/s 323/34, I.P.C. is concerned, the same is affirmed.

However, learned Counsel for the revisionists contended that the incident had taken place as far back as in 1992 and more than 14 years has lapsed and no useful purposes will be served to send the revisionists to jail at this belated stage. Learned Counsel for the revisionists further contended that the revisionist had remained in jail for 13 days after their conviction by the trial court and they had also remained in jail after the dismissal of their appeal by the lower appellate court and thus for, nearly about a month or so they had remained in jail. He also contended that there is no bad antecedent of the revisionist and they have no criminal background. He also submitted that the incident started all of a sudden at the spur of moment without any pre-meditation and therefore there was total absence of any mens rea on the part of the revisionists. He also submitted that the revisionist had suffered a lot from 1992 till date and therefore their substantive sentence be altered into fine.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contended that the sentence awarded to the accused revisionists is not excessive and they had caused as many as fourteen inures to the injured Kirti Singh and therefore no leniency should be shown to the accused revisionists.

I have considered the submissions of the rival sides. This is admitted that the incident occurred in the year 1992 and fourteen years had lapsed since then and that the revisionist do not have any bad antecedent. No doubt their conviction is cemented by the concurrent findings of facts but after such a long gap of fourteen years things must have settled down a lot between the rival factions. There is nothing on record to suggest that any of sides did any thing after the incident or made any complaint against each other. The revisionist also remained in jail for about a month as is clear from the lower appellate court record which indicates that after their conviction by the trial court on 27.10.2004 they filed appeal against the said conviction on 9.11.2004 on which date they were ordered to be released on bail by the lower appellate court. After dismissal of their appeal by the lower appellate court on 7.8.2006 they filed instant revision in this Court on 11.8.2006 and on 18.8.2006 they were ordered to be released on bail by this Court. Their actual release must have taken another week. Thus it seems that the revisionists had remained in jail for more than a month. In this view of the matter I consider it appropriate that the sentence for the period already undergone and a compensation of Rs. four thousand each to be paid to the injured will meet the ends of justice.

Hence this revision is party allowed. The conviction of the revisionists u/s 323/34, I.P.C. is maintained but their sentences of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. five hundred each are reduced to the period already undergone and each of them are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. four thousand to the injured Kirti Singh to-talling to Rs. sixteen thousand in all. The said amount of Rs. sixteen thousand shall be deposited by them with the trial court to be paid to Kirti Singh injured by the trial court. The revisionists are granted three weeks time to deposit the said amount of compensation with the trial Magistrate who will give it to the injured within a week of it''s deposit with it. If the revisionists fail to deposit the said compensation within the time allowed to them the trial court is directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against them and will send them to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to them by it vide it''s order dated 27.10.2004. If the revisionist deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated period of three weeks the trial court is directed to discharge their sureties and personal bonds.

With the above modification in sentence the revision is partly allowed.