Saudan Singh vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Revisionist Saudan Singh was tried in Case No. 290 of 2003 by Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, district Etah in case State v. Saudan Singh and others Crime No. 71 of 1995 under Sections 380 and 411, I.P.C., P.S. Sahawar, district Etah vide Crime No. 71 of 1995.

The allegations against the revisionist accused were that on the intervening night between 22/23.5.1995, informant Kunwar Pal was sleeping alongwith his family, when at 12.30 a.m. his table fan was found missing. Dhanpal Singh, the brother of Kunwar Pal, raised hue and cry that thieves have stolen the aforesaid table fan. The informant, his brother and the co-villagers Shaitan Singh, Kallu chased the thieves and one of the thieves Saudan Singh (the present revisionist) was caught by them at 12.45 in night. From possession of the applicant a Parat (big plate) belonging to Dhanpal brother of the informant was recovered. Saudan Singh (present revisionist) after being apprehended named Som Datt and Mahipal as his companions who had fled away with table fan belonging to the informant. The informant lodged the F.I.R. of the said incident, which culminated into charge-sheet u/s 380/411, I.P.C.

In the trial court prosecution examined the informant Kunwar Pal as P.W. 1, Dhan Pal as P.W. 2, Kallu P.W. 3, Sub-Inspector Sukhveer Singh P.W. 4 and H. C. P. Giridhari Singh P.W. 5. The F.I.R., recovery memo, site plan G.D., medical reports of the revisionist Saudan Singh and the charge-sheet were proved as exhibits.

The defence of the revisionist u/s 313, Cr. P.C. was that of denial and, he did not lead any defence evidence.

The trial court on the basis of the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the revisionist accused who deserves to be convicted and consequently it convicted the revisionist u/s 380/411, I.P.C. and sentenced him to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine one month further simple imprisonment on the first count and six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 and in default of payment of fine 15 days further simple imprisonment on the second count vide its order dated 30.9.2005.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentences revisionist preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 24/05, Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 24/05, which was heard and dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Etah vide his impugned order dated 4.8.2006. The lower appellate court though maintained the conviction of the revisionist but had altered the sentence of the revisionist u/s 380, I.P.C. and sentenced him to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The trial court also altered the sentences u/s 411, I.P.C. to three months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The lower appellate court further ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

I have heard Sri J. N. Rajpoot, learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of this revision and also the learned A.G.A. in opposition.

At the time of admission of this revision it transpires that revisionist had not surrendered and subsequently he was directed to surrender before the trial court. He surrendered before the trial court on 28.8.2006 and since then he is in jail.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist did not address on the finding of facts recorded by both the courts below and he fairly conceded that so far as the conviction part is concerned, the impugned orders passed by the both courts below does not suffer from any error of law. Consequently he conceded that the conviction of the revisionist recorded by both the courts below is absolutely justified. However, he submitted that the sentences awarded to the revisionist, is too severe. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that this was the first offence of the revisionist and he had no criminal history. He further contended that while recording conviction of the revisionist and sentencing him the Judicial Magistrate Kasganj, district Etah did not give cogent reasons for not releasing the revisionist on probation u/s 360, Cr. P.C. Learned Counsel further contended that in the case of his first offence the trial court should have given the cogent reasons for not releasing the accused on probation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 1995 and 11 years have elapsed since then and to send the revisionist to jail at this belated stage will not serve any useful purpose and in the interest of justice he should not be sent to jail. He, therefore, submitted that substantive sentences be altered into fine.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. on the question of sentence as has been submitted by them. It is an admitted fact that in this case the incident had taken place in the year 1995. More than ten years have elapsed since then. The revisionist accused was initially convicted for two years simple imprisonment, which was reduced to one year R.I. by the lower appellate court. The appeal of the revisionist was dismissed on 4.8.2006. The revisionist had surrendered before the trial court on 28.8.2006 and since then he is in jail. The said rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3-1/2 months in my view is sufficient for him for the offences on the facts of the present case. The trial court has also not given any reason for not releasing the revisionist on probation. Since the revisionist had no any criminal history against him, therefore, I consider it appropriate to alter the sentences of the revisionist as awarded by the lower appellate court to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist with enhancement of fine to an amount of Rs. 5,000 (Five thousand). Out of the said amount of Rs. 5,000, Rs. 4,000 shall be given to the informant for repurchasing of his stolen table fan. So far as sentence u/s 411, I.P.C. is concerned, the same is altered to the period already undergone as revisionist had been in jail for more than three months.

In the result the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the revisionist is maintained but his sentence u/s 380, I.P.C., as is awarded by the lower appellate court vide his impugned judgment dated 4.8.2006 is altered into the period of imprisonment already undergone by him with enhancement of fine to Rs. 5,000 (Five thousand). Out of the fine to be deposited by the revisionist before the trial court, Rs. 4,000 shall be given to the informant for repurchasing of the table fan, which was stolen by the revisionist. So far as sentences for offence u/s 411, I.P.C. is concerned, the revisionist is sentenced to the period already gone by him. The revisionist is allowed two weeks time to deposit the amount of fine with the trial court. For the said purpose the trial court will release him on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties each in the like amount to its satisfaction. If the fine is not deposited by the revisionist within the period of two weeks the trial court is directed to get him arrested to send him jail to serve out the sentences awarded by the lower appellate court. As soon as the fine is deposited the trial court will disburse Rs. 4,000 to the informant within one week of its deposit as compensation without surety and security. After the fine is deposited the personal bond and surety bonds shall be discharged by the trial court.

The revision is partly allowed as above.