Ram Ghulam and Others vs State

V.P. Mathur, J.—These two criminal revisions arise out of the same judgment passed by Mr. M.C. Godbole, the then Sessions Judge, Kanpur, on 22-10-83. The learned Judge was hearing an appeal (being criminal appeal No. 236 of 1983) against the judgment and order passed by Mr. J.S. Pari bar. Metropolitan Magistrate Gwali Tola (Kanpur) through which the learned Magistrate has convicted all the four revisionists under Sections 452, 325 and 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 452 Indian Penal Code to one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 325 and to three month''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 323 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the appeal recorded acquittal of the revisionists u/s 325 Indian Penal Code but confirmed the convictions under Sections 452 and 323 Indian Penal Code reducing the sentence on first count to three months and on the second count to one month''s rigorous imprisonment and making the two sentences concurrent.

Briefly stated, the prosecution story was that on 21-10-79 at about 2.30 P.M. when Babu Ram son of Jagannath was sitting at the door of the informant Heera Lai, the revisionists, namely Ram Autar, Indra Kumar, Prakash alias Omprakash and Ram Ghulam, who belong to the same locality, came there and picked up a quarrel with him. They started abusing him. Ram Ghulam was armed with an iron rod. The remaining three had lathi and Dandas. As a result of this exchange of abuses, they started belabouring Babu Ram with their weapons. Heera Lal and his nephew came to save Babu Ram and they were promptly given a chase by the revisionists. They ran towards their bouses and they were chased and ultimately the revisionists entered the house and gave beating to Heera Lai, his wife Smt. Basanti and Sukha with their weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by Phoolchand and Thakur Prasad and after committing the offence the revisionists went away from the spot and then an FIR was written out and lodged at the police station by Heera Lal at 4 P.M. The injuries of Heera Lai, Sukha, Babu Ram and Smt. Basanti were examined. Each one of them had at least one lacerated wound besides other injuries. Heera Lai, Sukkha and Babu Ram entered the witness-box to prove their case. The Doctor, who examined the injuries, was examined as PW 4 and the Investigation Officer as PW 5. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution story and passed the impugned orders.

The first argument advanced is that the two witnesses Phool Chand and Thakur Prasad, who were named in the FIR as independent witnesses have not been examined. It is true but it will have absolutely no effect upon the case itself because the law does not want overburdening of the record by producing evidence. If the witnesses who have already been examined can be believed, the case cannot be thrown out on the ground that some other witnesses who were on the spot and witnessed the incident were not examined. Injuries were sustained by four persons including a lady and an explanation has come for the same from three persons. The defence suggestion is absolutely meaningless and bogus and I am in agreement with the courts below that as a matter of fact it is established beyond doubt that these four persons, namely Heera Lai, Sukkha, Babu Ram and Smt. Basanti were injured as a result of the beating given by the present revisionists out of whom Ram Ghulam was armed with an iron rod and the remaining three had lathi and Dandas. It is also to be held that three of these persons were injured inside their house. Hence the charges under Sections 323 and 452 Indian Penal Code were clearly made out against the accused-revisionists and their convictions were rightly returned.

The matter of sentence, however, requires some consideration. The occurrence took place as far back as October, 1979 and this revision is being disposed of in February, 1988. The sentences awarded are only of three months rigorous imprisonment and one month''s rigorous imprisonment on two separate counts but they have been made concurrent. It will really be very harsh if the accused-revisionists are now made to go back to Jail to serve out their sentences after such a long lapse of time. The learned Counsel for the revisionists, who argued these revisions, states that if the accused persons are visited with a floe instead of being sent to Jail it will not be treated as enhancement of sentence. The Magistrate passed the order of conviction and sentence on 9-8-83 and after filing of the appeal on 26-8-83 bail was granted to the four revisionists. Thus from 9-8-83 to 26-8-83 they remained in Jail custody. Similarly, the Sessions Judge''s order is dated 22-10-83. Ram Ghulam, Ram Autar and Indra Kumar were granted bail by this Court on 27-10-83 whereas Prakash alias Omprakash was granted bail on 26-10-83. In this manner after the judgment of the Sessions Judge they have remained in Jail custody for 4-5 days. Under these circumstances, while I up-hold the convictions of the accused-revisionists under Sections 452 and 323 Indian Penal Code, I alter their sentences. u/s 452 Indian Penal Code their sentence shall be the imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 200/- each and u/s 323 Indian Penal Code the sentence shall be a fine of Rs. 100/- each. In event of default of payment of fine, on any of these counts, the defaulter shall, however, undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s 452 Indian Penal Code and for one month u/s 323 Indian Penal Code. Out of the amount of fine deposited, a sum of Rs. 200/- shall be paid to each of the injured, namely Babu Ram, Sukkha, Heera Lal and Smt. Basanti. The amount of fine shall be deposited within a period of two months from today.

With the observations above both the revisions stand disposed of.