Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1498 of 1995 Revisionist :- Sheo Sharan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- R.B.Sahai,Shrawan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.G.A
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, holding brief of Sri Shrawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned judgement and order dated 21.11.1995 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1994 dismissing the appeal, arising out of judgement and order dated 18.3.1994 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur in Case No.300 of 1992, Police Station Malwan, District Fatehpur, by which, accused-revisionist has been convicted under Section 323, 504 IPC to undergo six months and three months R.I. respectively.
Brief facts giving rise to this revision is that on 2.4.1992 at about 1:30 p.m. Smt. Suraj Kali wife of informant Ramlal was looking after the crops of gram at the field and in the meanwhile the appellant /accused reached there and uprooted the gram crop and on the interference by Smt. Suraj Kali, the appellant /accused abused her in filthy language and also she was beaten by lathi and consequently she sustained injuries on her person. On the evening, her husband returned and she narrated the incident to him, who went to the police station on the next day and lodged the F.I.R. orally and after obtaining the permission from Court, the case was investigated and charge sheet was submitted against the accused.
Learned counsel for the revisionist 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-revisionist back to Jail would not serve the useful purpose.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist 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 revisionist, 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 323, 504 I.P.C. and I do not find any good ground to interfere the conviction, therefore, conviction of revisionists under Sections 323, 504 IPC is confirmed.
So far as sentence of revisionist 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 1986. There is nothing on record to show that accused- revisionist has misused the liberty of bail.
After lapse of long time, I do not think it proper to send the accused-revisionist 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 conviction of accused-revisionist is confirmed and he is sentenced to rigours imprisonment for a period already under gone and to fine of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of three months from today. Failing which, he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment and trial court shall take necessary action to recover the same.
Let order be communicated to Trial Court concerned through District Judge for necessary action and compliance.
The revision is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Manoj