High CourtsSingle Bench

Ram Gopal and Others vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 28 February 1997 · Citation: (1997) 21 ACR 406

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.A. Rahim, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 354
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1629 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 380 words

C.A. Rahim, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. Sri A.K. Singh Yadav, appearing for the State.

2.

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad dated 7.8.1984 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1984. By that judgment he modified the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate and convicted the Appellants u/s 149/323, I.P.C. in place of Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one month and dismissed the appeal in respect of other sections.

3.

The learned IVth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad by his judgment dated 20.2.1984 in Criminal Case No. 525 of 1983 convicted and sentenced all the Appellants under Sections 147 and 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and one month respectively. Ram Gopal was also convicted u/s 148/354, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and 3 months respectively.

4.

Sri Murlidhar appearing for the applicants has submitted that since 12 years have passed in the mean time and the social condition and family position of the applicants have been changed, it would be futile to send the accused persons in Jail once again. He has submitted that lenient punishment of fine be imposed in lieu of the substantive sentence.

5.

Having considered the fact that in all the sections fine has been provided in the alternative and in view of the submission that the accused applicants have suffered imprisonment for about a week, I feel that sentence of fine to the extent of Rs. 500 each for all the applicants would meet the ends of justice.

6.

The revision is, therefore, allowed in part. Convictions are affirmed but the sentences are modified to the extent that each of them shall pay Rs. 500 in all for the offence committed by them. The substantive sentence imposed in connection with the above noted sections by the learned lower courts are hereby set aside. So, unit bonds of all the applicants are discharged. They are not required to surrender in the court. Fine shall be paid within a period of two months from this date, in default to suffer S.I. for one month.

With the above observations and modifications, the revision is disposed of.