Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 181 of 1992 Revisionist :- Neksay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K. Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record of the case.
This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists, Neksay and Ram Autar against the judgment and order dated 23.1.1992 passed by learned IInd-Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1990 dismissing the Criminal Appeal, which was filed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.1990 passed by learned IInd-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Criminal Case No. 504 of 1990 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 354 IPC in Criminal Case No. 504 of 1990, police station Ganj Dundwara, district Etah, whereby trial court convicted the accused Neksay and Ram Autar under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the period of sentence from one year to three months. Hence, this criminal revision.
According to the prosecution case, FIR was lodged against accused-revisionists alleging that on 13.8.1986 prosecutrix was assaulted by the revisionists with intent to outrage her modesty. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and charge was framed.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1-, the prosecutrix, PW-2-Rameshwar, brother of the prosecutrix and PW-3, Guru Dayal Singh, the investigating officer of the case. They supported the prosecution case. After recording statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.8.1990 convicted the accused under Section 354 IPC and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. Against this order, Appeal No.
111 of 1990 was filed and the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Etah while dismissing the appeal reduced the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment each to three months rigorous imprisonment each vide order dated 23.1.1992.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the judgment and order of lower court as well as appellate court is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjecture and surmise.
Learned AGA submitted that both the impugned orders were passed legally. On the point of conviction, both the court has given concurrent findings.
From perusal of evidence on record, I find no illegality or perversity in both the judgements. Accordingly, on the point of conviction revision is liable to be dismissed.
On the point of sentence, placing reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mushtaq and others Vs. State of UP (U.P.Cr.R 2004 (II) page 610, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the case is of year 1986 and since then 32 years have been elapsed and both the accused are very old aged persons belonging to poor family and no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the accused to jail. Hence on the point of sentence, a lenient view may be taken. Considering the age of accused- revisionists, time pass during trial as well as pendency of appeal and revision and social and economic status of the revisionists, this Court is of the view that a lenient view about the sentence may be taken against revisionists.
Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months rigorous imprisonment under section 354 IPC awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1990 is set aside and instead revisionists are sentenced to the period already undergone under Section 354 IPC and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each, to be deposited by the revisionists within two months and in case of default in payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month each.
Office is directed to send the lower court record along with copy of this order to the concerned court within two weeks. Compliance report shall be submitted to this Court within three months, which shall be placed on record by the office.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Sumaira