Ram Shanker and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

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.

This Criminal Revision u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') has been preferred by the accused-revisionist-Ram Shanker and Smt. Laxmi Devi against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 04/09 Ram Shanker and Anr. v. State whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Criminal Case No. 1023/2000 State v. Ram Shanker and Anr. arising out of Crime No. 286/1999, under Sections 323/504/506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held the accused revisionist No. 1-Ram Shanker guilty u/s 323 IPC consequently he has convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 323 IPC and held the accused revisionist No. 2-Smt. Laxmi Devi guilty u/s 324 IPC consequently he has convicted and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 324 IPC.

As regards the finding of conviction, from a perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it appears that the finding of both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence which cannot be interfered with by this Court in revision while invoking its revisional power u/s 397 of the Code unless the finding is perverse. This Court being revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence at this stage. The learned Counsel for the accused-revisionist failed to show any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the finding of conviction recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which cannot be interfered with by this Court in the present revision.

As regards the sentence awarded by Trial Court, learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that the accused are already in jail since 06.10.2010. serving the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The accused have been held guilty u/s 323/324 IPC only. The accused were initially tried under Sections 324/504/506 IPC but the Trial Court did not find the evidence in support of offence under Sections 504/506 IPC. In this way, the Trial Court has partly disbelieved the prosecution story. The case relates to the year 1999 which was decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated13.1.2009. The accused preferred criminal appeal against their conviction before the Sessions Judge which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2010. They have already suffered a lot spending their precious time and money both in the long dragged litigation. In the circumstances, keeping in view the nature of offence, no fruitful purpose will be served to send the accused to jail to serve out the remaining term of the sentence; rather it will be proper to reduce the sentence of accused awarded by the Trial Court to the period already undergone in jail and fine may be imposed.

Learned A.G.A. although supported the judgment and order passed by both the courts below but he has no objection in the modification of the sentence as submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. He submits that the court may in its discretion modify the sentence awarded by the Trial Court which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court reducing the sentence and enhancing the amount of fine.

Considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. I agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist with regard to the modification of the sentence.

The accused-revisionist have already suffered a lot in the long dragged litigation. Keeping in view the nature of offence, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court may be modified by this Court by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused in jail and imposing fine to accused for the offences for which they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment.

The revision is, therefore, partly allowed. The finding of conviction recorded by both the courts below is confirmed. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court is modified to the extent that each accused are sentenced to under go imprisonment for the period already undergone by them in jail and the accused-revisionist No. 1 is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-under Section 323 IPC and the accused-revisionist No. 2 is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-under Section 324 IPC. In case the accused fail to pay the amount of fine, the accused revisionist No. 1 will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and the accused revisionist No. 2 will further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

The accused are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

The accused are allowed 30 days time from the date of their release to deposit the amount of fine as detailed above in the Trial Court, failing which they will be arrested immediately after the expiry of period of 30 days from the date of their release and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by this Court.

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