Allahabad High Court
Budhi Ram vs State Of U.P. on 11 May, 2016
Bench: Aditya Nath Mittal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 25
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 446 of 1996
Appellant :- Budhi Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Pandey,Alok Kapoor,G K Pandey,Surendra Nath Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.09.1996 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur-Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1995 relating to case crime no. 85 of 1994 under sections 366,376 and 368 Indian Penal Code (For short IPC), police station-Sampoornanagar, District-Lakhimpur-Kheri, whereby the appellant Budhi Ram has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 368 IPC with rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 22.8.1994 at about 11.00 O'clock in the night when daughter of the complainant and other family members were sleeping then in the night accused persons namely Surendra Pal and Jhingur Yadav had enticed away his daughter by threatening. When the complainant resisted, they extended threats to slain him. They committed rape upon the daughter of the complainant one by one. She was hidden by them in the field of sugarcane by next day. The appellant Budhi Ram kept a watch on her. Thereafter she was brought by them at the house of the present appellant Budhi Ram and she was locked in the room. The matter was reported to the police on 24.8.1994, upon which a case was registered at case crime no. 85 of 1994 under sections 363,366,506 and 120B IPC. During the course of investigation, the victim was recovered from the house of the present appellant on 24.8.1994, regarding which the recovery memo was prepared on the spot and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
The prosecution had examined Ghyan Singh (complainant) as P.W. 1, Smt. Narendra Kaur (victim) as P.W. 2, Dr. Ashok Kumar as P.W. 3, Head Constable Sarvesh Chandra as P.W.4 and Dr. Rekha Mishra as P.W.5.
The complainant has narrated the incident and has proved the FIR as Ext. Ka-1 and the Fard Supurdagi as Ext. Ka-2. The victim has also supported the prosecution story and has stated that on the second day of the incident, the accused persons namely Surendra Pal and Jhingur Yadav had brought her at the house of the present appellant Budhi Ram where she was kept hidden in a room. Dr. Ashok Kumar, P.W.3 proved the medical examination report of the victim. Head Constable Sarvesh Chandra P.W. 4 has proved the formal papers of the prosecution. Dr. Rekha Mishra P.W. 5 has also proved the medical examination report of the victim as Exts. Ka-6 and 7 and has stated that the victim was above 18 years.
After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty for the offence punishable under section 368 and accordingly sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of five years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted the conviction and has submitted that the appellant is aged about 65 years at present and his both kidneys are not functioning properly. It has also been submitted that only for one day, the victim had been kept at the house of the present appellant and during the trial, the present appellant has remained in jail for about three months and during the pendency of the appeal, he has remained in jail from 8.5.2014 to 4.6.2015. Thus, he has remained in jail for about 14 months. Therefore, the lenient view may be taken against the present appellant.
In deference to the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by this Court , the appellant is present personally in court today and his medical report has also been shown to the Court, which goes to show that his both kidneys are not functioning properly. It is also evident from the record that the appellant has remained in jail from 8.5.2014 to 4.6.2015 and he is aged about 65 years. From the perusal of the evidence on record, I also am of the opinion that the appellant is guilty for the offence punishable under section 368 IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is upheld. As far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, taking into consideration the fact that the victim had been kept only for one day at the house of the present appellant, for which he has already remained in jail for about 14 months. Therefore, the rest of the sentence of the present appellant is converted into a fine of Rs. 1000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellant within one month from today before trial court, failing which he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed alongwith aforesaid modifications.
Office is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the court concerned at an early date.
The office is further directed to retain the lower court record for the disposal of the Criminal Appeal Nos. 456 of 1996 and 443 of 1996 filed by Surendra pal and Jhingur Yadav, respectively.
Order Date :- 11.5.2016
GSY
