Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 571 of 2018 Revisionist :- Pintoo Alias Mahipal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar Rai,Shyam Narain Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The revisionist by means of this revision has challenged the order dated 31.1.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2014 and judgment and order dated 21.3.2014 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.3, Meerut in Criminal Case No.2169 of 2008 arising out of case crime no.348 of 2006, u/s 323, 325, 506 IPC, P.S. Kithore, district Meerut by which revisionist has been convicted u/s 323 IPC for simple imprisonment of six months, u/s 325 IPC for three years along with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of one month, u/s 506 IPC for one year simple imprisonment and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present revision is being decided on the question of sentence only.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that maximum sentence provided to the revisionist is three years for offence under Section 325 IPC. The rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of the sentence. The revisionist is in jail since 31.1.2018.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and has submitted that the lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence before it, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
I have perused the impugned judgment and orders as well as record and in my opinion the same do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error which may call for any interference by this Court, hence the conviction and sentence of the revisionists is hereby upheld. But taking in account of the fact that revisionist has already undergone sufficient period in jail as under trial and after their conviction by the lower appellate court, his rest of the sentence be reduced into fine. Accordingly, revisionist is directed to pay and deposit Rs.60,000/- as fine (including the fine which has been imposed on him by the trial court) in the court of C.J.M. concerned out of which Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to injured persons who are P.W.1 Santu and P.W.2 Veero, if alive, or to their legal heirs in equal proportion and Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State. If the revisionist deposits the aforesaid amount of fine, he shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
In default of the fine as directed above, the revisionist shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the courts below.
In view of the above, the revision is partly allowed.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to C.J.M., concerned for its compliance.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Gaurav