Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1078 of 1992 Revisionist :- Nizamuddin & Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- V.C. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Ram Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri Kapil Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
As per report dated 6.7.2018, submitted by CJM, Etawah, respondent no. 3-Nanhi has died, hence revision stands abated as against her.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that he does not was not press this revision for revisionist no. 4-Munni, as she was punished with fine of Rs.100/- only and the same has already been deposited.
This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 24.2.1992 and 25.7.1992 passed by C.J.M. Etawah and Sessions Judge, Etawah in Crime Case No. 28 of 1991 (Smt. Zarina Begum Versus Nizamuddin and others), under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1992 (Nizamuddin and others Vs. State of U.P.). The learned trial court vide its order dated 24.2.1992 hold revisionists guilty for offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo one year's R.I. for each and also imposed fine of Rs.100/- on each of the revisionists. The trial court has further said that in default of payment of fine revisionists have to undergo one month further R.I. The lower appellate court vide its order dated 25.7.1992 allowed revisionist's appeal and set aside the sentence awarded for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. to all the revisionist and also set aside the sentence of one year R.I. awarded to revisionists no. 3 and 4 for offence under S section 498-A I.P.C. and confined the sentence awarded to revisionists No. 1 and 2 for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C..
Learned counsel for the revisionists argued only on the point of sentence and submitted that the incident is of year 1988, 30 years have elapsed and no fruitful purpose would be served in sending revisionists no. 1 and 2 to jail. It is further submitted that revisionists no. 1 and 2 are ready to deposit fine before trial Court/appellate Court, hence lenient view may be taken against revisionists and they may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old, hence a lenient view may be taken.
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."
Considering the social and economic status of revisionists no. 1 and 2, family background, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending revisionists no. 1 and 2 to jail at this stage and purpose would be served if they are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.
The revision is partly allowed. The revisionists no. 1 and 2 namely, Nizamuddin and Bhurey respectively are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.4,000/- each under Section 498-A IPC and in default to deposit fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Copy of this judgment and order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months, which shall be kept on record.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 NS