Parmanand vs State of U.P.

H. C. Mital, J.—This is a revision on the point of sentence only against the judgment and order dated 25387 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1987 by Sri S. R. Pander, the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Banda, dismissing the appeal confirming the sentence and fine passed after convicting the revisionist under Section 332, I. P. C. by Munsif Magistrate I Class, Banda.

The facts of the case in brief are that Sri Ram Swaroop Rajpal Head Master of the Junior High School when working in his office the accusedrevisionist entered into his office and attacked him with Lathi causing the following three simple injuries :

(.1) One contusion with swelling on the upper left eyelid measuring 3.5 cm X 2 cm.

(2) Contusion 8 cm. X 2 cm. on the outerside of left knee over the left thigh.

(3) Contusion with swelling 4 cm. X 2 cm. on the back of left side chest.

The motive behind the attack is said to be an auction of a piece of land belonging to the school and that amount was to be realised from the accusedrevisionist. It is alleged that the accusedrevisionist had deposited the money with the injured Head Master who had assured that he will get the matter settled. The accusedrevisionist, however, did not produce the receipt, hence he was fined when the recovery proceedings started by the village Pradhan and, therefore, the revisionist had gone to realise the amount from the Head Master. The trial Court found the offence proved on the basis of the prosecution evidence produced before it and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has confirmed the decision.

Now the revisionist has submitted to his conviction and has filed this revision on the point of sentences. The incident is of more than four and half years back. The revisionist had already deposited the fine of Rs. 500 imposed against him and has also been in prison for a period of about one and a half months. It is, therefore, urged on his behalf that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. I have heard learned counsel for the State also. Considering that the incident had taken place on 1541986 and now the revisionist has submitted to this conviction, that is, he has realised his guilt, ends of justice would amply meet if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed has already been deposited. The revision is allowed accordingly on the point of sentence. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

Revision allowed.