Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2211 of 2000 Revisionist :- Narendra Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- R.P. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.
Advocate,Kr. R.C. Singh
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Nishant Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 14.9.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.
80 of 1999 dismissing the appeal, arising out of judgement and order dated 30.11.1999 passed by learned IXth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 1374 of 1997, by which, accused-revisionists have been convicted under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.
Brief facts giving rise to present criminal revision are as under :-
Smt. Vijay Lakshmi is daughter of Hari Prasad, resident of Vikas Nagar near Railway Station, Loni. She was married with Narendra Kumar on 2.5.1993 according to Hindu rites. It is alleged that Hari Prasad had given dowry according to his financial capacity. Smt. Vijay Lakshmi was taken to her matrimonial home situate at village Mangolpuri Block C-House No. 463 New Delhi. There she was discharging her matrimonial obligations. Smt. Vijay Lakshmi gave birth to a male child as a result of the said wedlock. Subsequently, the child died. The complainant Smt. Vijay Lakshmi has alleged that the articles given in dowry at the time of marriage were her 'STRIDHAN'. They were entrusted to the accused, who are dishonestly misappropriating or converting to their own use. She alleged to be entitled to get back the said articles. She further alleged that at the time of birth of her child, she was admitted at in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi. The accused left her in the hospital and went away. Her parents took care of her and suffered all the expenses. The complainant further alleged that since then she is residing with her parents.
Learned counsel for the revisionists fairly submitted that it is very difficult to assail the finding of conviction there is no scope to interfere on the basis of merit regarding conviction, he does not want to press the revision on merit but he prayed that after a lapse of so long time, sentence awarded by the Court below may be reduced to the period already undergone. He further prayed that after a lapse of so long time, sending the accused-revisionists back to Jail would not serve the useful purpose.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists by stating that under the circumstances in which occurrence took place, sentence awarded by the courts below appears fit and proper.
Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire evidence available on record. I find that after a proper scrutiny of evidence trial court as well as appellate court found the accused guilty under Section 406 I.P.C. and I do not find any good ground to interfere the conviction, therefore, conviction of revisionists under Section 406 IPC is confirmed.
So far as sentence of revisionists is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that proceeding before the court below was commenced in 1997 and there is nothing on record to show that accused- revisionists have misused the liberty of bail.
After lapse of long time, I do not think it proper to send the accused-revisionists in jail again. I am of the view that if the sentences of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone with fine, it would meet the ends of justice.
It is ordered that the accused-revisionists are sentenced to rigours imprisonment for a period already under gone and to fine of Rs. 5,000/- each to be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of three months from today. Failing which, they shall undergo three months simple imprisonment.
Let order be communicated to Trial Court concerned through District Judge for necessary action and compliance.
The revision is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.1.2019 Manoj