Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 882 of 1996 Revisionist :- Kripa Shankar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- C.M. Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist-Kripa Shankar Singh against the judgment and order dated 26.3.1996 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1990 against the judgment and order dated 20.6.1990 passed by learned lower court, 1st, Jaunpur in Case No. 1004 of 1988 convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Sections 323 and 354 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and under Section 452 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Against which the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1990, which was dismissed.
2- In nutshell, the prosecution case is that First Information Report was lodged against four accused persons, including the revisionist, alleging that in the night of 2/3.01.1984 at about 10- 00 p.m., they assaulted Tara Devi in absence of her husband, who was living in Bombay, with intent to outrage her modesty and she received three injuries, contusions on her upper and left hand, swelling on her right and left leg and muscle pain on her right leg.
3- After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 354, 323 and 452 I.P.C. and charges were framed.
4- Prosecution examined P.W.1 Vimla Devi, P.W. 2 Tara Devi, P.W.3 Kamla Devi, P.W.4 Ram Lakhan, P.W.5 Dr. R.N. Srivastava and P.W.6 Rajendra Prasad. Statement of the revisionist was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, impugned judgment was passed under Sections 354, 323 and 452 I.P.C., Police Station-Gaura Badshahpur, District Jaunpur, in which the revisionist was convicted, as stated above.
5- Against this judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1990 was filed and decided vide order dated 26.3.1996 and that was dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jaunpur. Hence this revision.
6- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
7- Learned counsel for the revisionist is not arguing on the point of conviction.
8- On the point of conviction, trial court as well as appellate court have given concurrent findings on the point of conviction against the revisionist.
9- On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the incident is of the year 1984, 34 years have been elapsed, the age of the accused-revisionist is at present more than 65 years and he submitted papers relating to treatment of the revisionist and submitted that at present he is suffering from Tuberculosis and he belongs to rural areas and his social and economic condition is not good; hence no useful purpose would be served if he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by imposing some fine. He further submitted that during pendency of appeal, the revisionist was in jail about four months.
10- Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old and the revisionist is also old person, hence a lenient view may be taken.
11- Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the following decisions:
1- Mushtaq and others Vs. State of U.P. [UP CrR 2004 (II)] page 60.
2- Dasha Mani Shukla & another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2000 (2) JIC 970 (All).
3- Dannoo and another Vs. State of U.P. 1999 (1) JIC 851 (All).
12- Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that in paragraph-4 this Court in the case of Dannoo and another (supra), has held that accused-revisionist has not challenged the conviction of of this accused-revisionist for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 I.P.C. He has made submissions only on the question of sentence. He has pointed out that the occurrence related to the year 1974 and the accused-revisionist was coming down on bail from the month of June, 1984 uptil now. He has further pointed out from the record of this revision that this accused revisionist had surrendered in court on 31.5.1984 in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 14.5.1984 of the Additional Sessions Judge and that this court had passed the bail order in his favour only on 13.6.1984 and that the matter having related to Kanpur Dehat, it would have taken a view more days for obtaining the actual release of the accused-revisionist from jail after furnishing bonds before the Magistrate concerned there. In short, the argument is that he has already suffered R.I. in jail for a period of atleast a fortnight. He has further argued that sending the accused revisionist back to jail now after such a long gap of time would do more harm than good. He has prayed that the sentence of imprisonment in the case of each offence may be reduced to the period already undergone. This prayer may be accepted to the extent that in view of the reduction in the sentence of imprisonment, suitable amount of fine may be imposed and time may be granted to pay the same.
13- The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Kalia and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1261 has held that we would, therefore, while upholding the conviction of Raman Kalia under Section 323 I.P.C. reduce the sentence to the period already served, which we understand is about a month and a half.
14- Considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as in this Court and also considering that the revisionist belongs to rural areas and belongs to poor family and his social and economic condition is not well and the age of the revisionist and time spent during trial as well as in appeal and revision and during pendency of appeal he was in jail about four months, the ends of justice would be served if he will be sentenced to the period already undergone under Sections 354, 323 and 452 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.4000/-.
15- Revision is partly allowed. Revisionist-Kripa Shankar Singh is sentenced to the period already undergone for the aforesaid offences and fine of Rs.4,000/-. The revisionist is directed to deposit the fine within a period of two months from today.
Office is directed to Fax or e-mail this order along with the lower court record to the court concerned immediately.
Compliance report be sent to this Court within three months. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 OP