Court No. - 61
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2360 of 2009
Appellant :- Nand Lal & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rang Nath Pandey,J.
The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order 24.02.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.13, Allahabad in S.T. No.59 of 2004 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 to three months' simple imprisonment; under Section 304 Part-2 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional three months' simple imprisonment; and under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code to six months' simple imprisonment. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Smt. Bharti Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, has stated at the bar that the appellants are in custody for few months. Learned counsel has further submitted that she has to say nothing on merits of the case and she simply prays that the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone in jail and some fine may be imposed. She points out that the incident had taken place in the year of 2003.
So far as, sentence is concerned it has been held that:-
(i) In Uthem Rajanna vs. State of A. P. reported in 2005 (11) Supreme Court Cases 531; accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304-A IPC alongwith fine, three months under Section 338 IPC. In appeal Hon'ble the Apex Court has reduced the sentence period already undergone.
(ii) In Neelam Bahal and another vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 229; accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Hon'ble the Apex Court has convicted accused under Section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence to period already undergone i.e. almost one year on the ground that the incident happened in the year 1987 when the accused was of young age of 25 years.
After perusing the judgment impugned and considering the above mentioned judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in jail and a reasonable amount of fine is imposed upon them.
In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by them in jail. Besides, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-each under Section 304 Part-2 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which shall be payable to the family members of deceased. The appellants are directed to deposit the entire fine within a period of one month from today in the court concerned.
Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of sentence only as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained.
Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned Sessions Judge concerned for its onward transmission to the court concerned for information and further action in the matter.
Smt. Bharti Mishra, Advocate, Advocate Roll No.A/B 0463/2013, was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellants to assist the Court. Smt. Bharti Mishra, Advocate rendered valuable assistance to the Court. The Court quantifies Rs.5,000/- to be paid to Smt. Bharti Mishra, Advocate, towards fee in lieu of the assistance provided by her in hearing the instant appeal. The above amount be paid to Smt. Bharti Mishra, Advocate by the Registry of the Court within two months.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Ashish