Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1857 of 1999 Revisionist :- Satish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Krishna Yadav,Jitendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State.
The Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 16.9.1999 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1999, Satish Vs. State whereby accused revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under Section 354 I.P.C. with two months R.I. and under Section 506 I.P.C. with three months R.I. and both the sentences were directed to run one after another. The said appeal was preferred against the judgement and order dated 11.06.1999 passed by Ist A.C.J.M., Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 1093 of 1993 whereby trial court had conducted and sentenced the accused with same punishment but both the sentences were directed by him to run concurrently, hence the prayer is made for setting aside both the judgements mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has confined his argument only to the point of sentence and has stated that till now, accused has become about 60 years of age and at this distant point of time, tremendous hardship would be caused to the accused if he is sent to jail and sentenced to serve out the sentence awarded by the court below, therefore, he has prayed that only fine may be increased.
Learned A.G.A. has argued that some part of the fine so enhanced be directed to be paid to victim.
I have gone through the judgement of both the courts below and find that both the courts have given concurrent finding with respect to accused having committed offence under Section 354 I.P.C. as well as under Section 506 I.P.C. and I do not find any infirmity in the said judgements because after having gone through the evidence on record, I find that the appreciation made by the trial court and appellate court is in accordance with the settled principles of law and, therefore, appellate court's judgement is affirmed and revision deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed as regards the accused having been held guilty under Sections 354 I.P.C. and 506 I.P.C.
With regard to the punishment awarded, I find after having regard to the fact that at the time of commission of offence, the accused was about 32 years of age and by now, he would have attained the age of around 60 years and it would be appropriate that instead of sending him to jail to serve out the remaining sentence, fine should be enhanced in both the sections. It is also found that at the time when this occurrence had happened, the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. was punishable with imprisonment of either description for the term which could extend to two years or with fine or with both. Similarly offence under Section 506 I.P.C. was punishable at that time with the same quantum of punishment i.e. it could extend up to two years or with fine or with both.
I find that awarding Rs. 10,000/- as fine under Section 354 I.P.C. and Rs. 10,000/- under Section 506 I.P.C. would serve the ends of justice and the award of imprisonment of two months R.I. under Section 354 I.P.C. and three months R.I. under Section 506 I.P.C. needs to be set-aside. Accordingly, the sentence is modified and I hold the accused guilty and punish him with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 354 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, accused revisionist shall undergo one month additional simple imprisonment and under Section 506 I.P.C., fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of it, accused revisionist shall undergo one month additional simple imprisonment.
It is made clear that the fine awarded to the accused-revisionist shall be deposited within two months' time from the date of judgement.
Let a copy of this judgement be transmitted to the trial court along with lower court record for ensuring the compliance forthwith.
Accordingly, this Revision stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 A. Mandhani