Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 190 of 1999 Revisionist :- Chandra Shekhar Uttam Opposite Party :- Birendra And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- S.N.Verma,S.R.Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Na,Shivakant,Shyam Narayan Verma
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Advocate for the opposite parties.
The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1998 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No.259 of 1994, P.S.-Bindki, District-Fatehpur wherein only question raised is with regard to period of sentence awarded by the trial court while holding the opposite party guilty of commission of offence under section 304 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
The order of the trial court categorically recorded on the question of sentence that the evidence on record shows that the offence under Section 304/34 I.P.C was committed not with the intention of committing murder. The injuries caused were not with the intention of causing death but it was within the knowledge of the accused persons that the said act was likely to cause death. It has, thus, found it just and equitable to award a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years against each of the accused persons with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In case of non-payment of fine, the accused persons had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another term extending for a period of three years.
It is admitted to the parties that all the accused/opposite parties herein had served their sentence.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court could not have awarded sentence of lesser period than the period provided in Section 304 I.P.C coupled with Section 34 I.P.C. The submission is that looking to the language of the provisions of Section 304 I.P.C., it was not open for the trial court to grant lesser term of sentence.
This submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is found misconceived.
The language of Section 304 I.P.C is clear and categorical which though provides the maximum period of sentence but minimum period is not indicated therein.
It was well within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to award sentence after appreciation of the evidence on record, giving due opportunity to the accused on the question of sentence. There is no jurisdictional error in the order of the trial court.
The present revision is found devoid of merit and hence, dismissed.
Certify the judgment to the lower court immediately.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Harshita