Surendra Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Prasad, J.—The four real brothers Surendra Singh, Amrendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Virendra Singh all sons of Bheekam Singh, residents of Village Chandiyapur, Police Station Tirwa, district Kannauj alongwith Girand Singh, Radhey Shyam and Harsukh alias Harsukh Lal have challenged their convictions and sentences for offences u/s 147, I.P.C. for six months R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rs. one thousand), under Sections 323/149, I.P.C. for six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000, and u/s 324, I.P.C. for one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rs. one thousand) recorded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2006, Surendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. The lower appellate court had further ordered that all the sentences shall run consecutively. Earlier the Appellants were convicted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj in Case No. 523 of 2003, State v. Bheekam Singh and others, under Sections 147, 323 and 324, I.P.C. and were sentenced for two years R.I. on the first count with fine of Rs. 1,500 (Rs. fifteen hundred), six months R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rs. one thousand) on second count and three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000 (Rs. two thousand) on the last count. They were also awarded further imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fines vide order dated 31.5.2006 by the trial Magistrate.

In short the prosecution allegations against the revisionists are that informant injured Roshan Ali had grown the crop of Maize and Gram in the field of Sriram Thekadar being Chak No. 542 which he had taken on lease. On 27.3.1990 at 10 a.m., nine the accused persons including the seven revisionists were cutting the said crop (two others were Jaswant Singh and Bheekam Singh who had died during the trial and their trial had abated). On objection being raised by the injured informant Roshan Ali, he was belaboured by lathi by the culprits. His cry for help attracted his daughter Takdeeran, his sons Ahasan Ali, Riyasat Ali and his nephew Safeeq Ali on the spot who were also belaboured by the male-factors. F.I.R. (Exbit Ka-1) of the said incident was scribed by Sajid Ali and was lodged by the informant Roshan Ali at the police station Tirwal, district Kannauj on the same day at 3.00 p.m. covering a distance of 3 kms. west from the place of incident. The injured persons were medically examined on 27.3.1990, vide Exhibits Ka-2, Ka-3, Ka-4 and Ka-5 at P.H.C. Tirwa and their injury reports indicated that Safeeq Ali had two abrasions and a complaint of pain, Roshan Ali had an incised wound on left knee with complaint of pain, Smt. Takdeeran had a lacerated wound on the right side skull with a contusion on her right shoulder and Riyasat Ali informant had a lacerated wound on the right side skull with an abrasion on the scapular region. All the injuries of all the injured persons were found to be simple by the doctor. Investigation into the crime resulted into charge-sheet against the revisionist for offences under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 and 506, I.P.C. for which they were summoned by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, who framed charges against them for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 324, I.P.C.

Prosecution in support of its case examined P.W. 1 Roshan Ali (informant), P.W. 2 Riyasat Ali (injured), P.W. 3 Takdeeran (injured), P.W. 4 Girand Singh, P.W. 5 Doctor Prem Kumar Gupta and P.W. 7 Raj Narayan Tripathi (Investigating Officer) in the trial.

The accused pleaded false implication because of enmity with the witnesses.

Findings the case of the prosecution prove to the hilt Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, vide his impugned order dated 31.5.2006 convicted all the revisionists under Sections 147, 323 and 324, I.P.C. and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment and fine as has been mentioned above.

The revisionists aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentences preferred Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Kannauj, which was partly allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj vide his impugned order dated 27.1.2004. The lower appellate court maintained the convictions but altered the sentences to six months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rs. one thousand) for offence u/s 147, six months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rs. one thousand) for offence, u/s 323/149, I.P.C. and one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000 fine for offence u/s 324, I.P.C. and further ordered that all the sentences shall run consecutively. Meaning thereby that each of the revisionist were sentenced to two years imprisonment with Rs. 3,000 as fine. It was further ordered by the lower appellate court that each accused will undergo three months further imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Aggrieved by their dismissal of appeal revisionist have filed the present revision.

I have heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Counsel for the revisionists in support of this revision and the learned A.G. A.

Sri Vinay Saran could not assail the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and, therefore, fairly conceded that there is no error either in the appreciation of evidences or in application of law by both the courts below and hence, the conviction recoded by the lower appellate court cannot be commented upon.

He, however, submitted that in this case the revisionists are in jail since 27.1.2007 and this was their first offence and therefore, they should not be sent to jail and their remaining part of imprisonment be altered into fine. He contended that since it is a case of simple injuries and the prosecution has developed its version from the F.I.R. in respect of the weapon wielded by the revisionist that the sentences implanted on the revisionists be altered. He further submitted that neither the trial Magistrate nor the lower appellate court had given cogent and sufficient reasons for not giving benefit of probation of first Offender''s Act to the revisionists, which should have been granted to them. Learned Counsel for the revisionists also contended that the incident had taken place in the year 1990 and 17 years has elapsed since then and therefore, to send the revisionist to jail after such a long period will not be in consonance with the principles of justice.

Learned A.G. A. on the other hand contended that the conviction of two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000 to each of the revisionists is not much and does not call for any further reduction by this Court.

I have considered the arguments on the questions of sentence raised by both the sides. In this case incident had occurred in the year 1990, seventeen years prior to this date. Nine people were arrayed as an accused in the case who were alleged to have assaulted the informant first. However, the injury report of the informant indicate that he had sustained only two injuries as has been proved by Dr. Prem Kumar Gupta P.W. 6 also. First injury was an abraded contusion on the back of head 0.5 cm. X 0.2 cm. with scabbing present on it. His second injury was an abrasion on the left forearm with scabbing present. This fact is not in consonance with the allegation that the assault was made by nine persons. Injury of the other injured persons also does not improve the situation as Safeeq Ali had only two abrasions, Smt. Takdeeran also sustained two injuries alongwith Riyasat Ali who also sustained two injuries. Thus, the total number of injuries were eight to all the injured persons whereas nine persons were arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R., including Jaswant Singh and Bheekam Singh who had died during the trial. Further it was the first offence of the revisionist who had no criminal history. On such facts, in my view, no useful purpose will be served by sending the revisionist to jail after seventeen years of the incident and instead I consider it appropriate to impose fine of Rs. 10,000 on each of the Appellants with compensation of Rs. 5,000 to each of the four injured persons in lieu of all the sentences awarded on them which to me will meet the ends of justice.

Resultantly, this revision is dismissed on merits but remaining part of imprisonment and fines on all the counts awarded by the lower appellate court on the revisionists are altered by imposing fine of Rs. 10,000 on each of the revisionists. Out of the said total fine of Rs. 70,000 (Rs. seventy thousand) and amount of Rs. 40,000 (Rs. forty thousand) are awarded as compensation to all the injured persons to be distributed amongst them equally. For realization of the said amount of fine the revisionists are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 (Rs. twenty thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Magistrate concerned. The revisionists are allowed one months time to deposit entire amount of fine awarded on them by this judgment. In the event of default by them in depositing the fine, the trial Magistrate is directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against them, get them arrested and lodge them in jail to serve out the remaining part of sentences as has been awarded to them by the lower appellate court vide his impugned judgment dated 27.1.2007.

As soon as the fine is deposited by the revisionists trial Magistrate A.C.J.M. is directed to summon the injured persons and disburse them the amount of compensation as has been awarded by this judgment within a period of two weeks thereafter.

This revision is allowed in part with the aforesaid modification in sentences.