Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1532 of 1999 Revisionist :- Devi Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- D.S. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.K.Mishra
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
List has been revised.
Revisionist or his learned counsel is not present while learned A.G.A. is present.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgement and order dated 6.8.1999 in criminal appeal no.5/96 Devi Prasad Verma vs. State of U.P. maintaining the conviction of the applicant u/s 323 and 325 IPC but reducing the sentence from 6 months to 1 month R.I. u/s 323 and reducing the sentence from 1 year to 6 months R.I. u/s 325 IPC and further sentencing him to fine of Rs.3000/- and ordering Rs.2000/- to be paid to Bachcha Lal complainant against the judgement and order of the 4th A.C.J.M., Allahabad dated 31.8.1996 in criminal case no.1993/96 convicting and sentencing the applicant u/s 323 and 325 IPC to 6 months R.I. and 1 year R.I., respectively.
In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.
This revision has been preferred by the revisionist on the following grounds; that conviction of the revisionist is illegal, improper and against the weight of evidence; that the conviction of the revisionist is based on testimony of the PW-2 and PW-3, who are the first cousin of injured Bachcha Lal and both are the partisan witnesses; that the injuries received by injured Bachcha Lal are abrasion and lacerated with a fractured of the left arm, nearly jointly of hand; that there was a family dispute and the revisionist was living separately from his father and brothers; that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in this case and the charges levelled against him are baseless and the revision is likely to be allowed.
There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement and order. Finding is based on the appraisal of evidence on record. So, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.
Consequently, revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Revision is dismissed. Stay order, if any, is vacated.
A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned court below for compliance within one month.
Order Date :- 24.1.2019 m.a.