Mahfooz And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3120 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 11.1.2021  
 
Delivered on  3.3.2021
 
Court No. 87
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4343 of 2018
 
Revisionist :- Mahfooz And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Irshad Ahmad,Ashish Kumar Gupta,Indra Mani Tripathi.
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemant Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Keshri,Tanweer Ahmed Siddiqui.
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ (F.T.C.) Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2017 under Sections 326, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Kapsethi, District- Varanasi and order dated 29.3.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Varanasi in case crime no. 99 of 2009, Criminal Case No. 784 of 2012 under Sections 326, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Kapsethi, District- Varanasi convicting and sentencing revisionists in under Section 506 I.P.C. and sentencing for rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine further undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of one month extra conviction in under Section 326 I.P.C. sentencing for rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine further undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of six month extra conviction and all the sentence will run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows-:-

Brief facts of the case is that on 21.3.2009 at about 11:30 p.m. all the revisionists entered into the house of the opposite party no. 2 and at that time family members of the opposite party were sleeping at the house and then all the four revisionists came the house of the revisionists and poured acid upon the family members of the informant/opposite party no.2 in which the informant's daughters Parveen, Anjum and Sahin have got severe acid burn injuries. The alleged incident of the acid attack was seen by the neighbours. After committing the alleged incident all the revisionists threatened the informant and informant's family members and fled away from the spot. On the information of the Gulam Gaus F.I.R. was lodged under Section 326 and 506 I.P.C.

3. During trial nine witnesses were examined. P.W.-1 is complainant, i.e. Gulam Gaus, P.W.-2, Smt. Shahjahan, wife of first informant, Gulam Gaus, who is also injured witness, P.W. 3, Injured Kumari Parveen, daughter of Gulam Gaus, P.W. 4, Injured Kumari Anjum, daughter of Gulam Gaus. P.W. 5, Munib, independent witness, P.W.-6, Dr. R.P.Singh, who examined the injured and also prepared the medical examination report of the injured i.e. the informant's daughters Parveen, Anjum and Sahin and P.W.-2, Shahjahan, P.W.7, Investigating Officer Md. Zakria Farooqui, P.W. 8, Constable, Sujeet Verma and P.W.-9, Anjani Kumar Srivastava.

4. Being aggrieved the revisionists has filed the present revision.

5. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Irshad Ahmad and Sri Ajai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Pradeep Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the opposite side, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that injuries caused to the the informant's daughters Parveen, Anjum and Sahin are not in the category of the grievous hurt and injuries are not dangerous to life. The injuries are superficial in nature and there was not any permanent disfigurement of the face or any part of the body. So the offence committed by the revisionists traverses not beyond under Section 324 I.P.C. so the conviction for seven years to the revisionists is too much harsh.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that complainant and his family was engaged in the work of colouring of wool in manufacturing of the carpet and they used chemical in their business. He, therefore, contended that family of the first informant have got accidental burn injuries by chemical used in the work of manufacturing the carpet but due to party bandi and previous enmity the revisionists were falsely implicated by the informant and trial court without appreciating the evidence available on record and wrongly convicted the revisionists. He further submits that on the perusal of the injuries it appears that injury was simple in nature and thus in the present facts and circumstances of the case the incarceration of the revisionists for seven years rigorous imprisonments is too harsh. All the revisionists are in jail for more than three and half years and they are poor and therefore, considering the poor condition of the revisions and other problems of the family it is prayed that the revisionists be released for the period already undergone.

8. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer submitted by the revisionists and submitted that three minor daughters of tender age and wife of the first informant have got acid burn injuries and due to this criminal act of the revisionists they were undergoing on trauma and informant's family spent lacs of rupees during the treatment of the injured and therefore, it appears that learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have shown leniency while awarding the punishment to the revisionists. He also submits that no new ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the revisionists and each and every aspects of the case and evidence available on record has already been appreciated by the appellate court as well as by the learned trial court.

9. The case requires to be considered not only bearing in mind the aforesaid proposition of law but also considering that the powers of Revisional Court against such an order are very limited for the reason that in revisional jurisdiction the Court satisfies itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the inferior Criminal Court.

10. In Amur Chand Agrawal v. Shanti Bose and Anr., AIR 1973 SC 799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

11. In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu, AIR 1979 SC 663, Hon'ble Supreme Court, placing reliance upon a large number of its judgments including Akalu Aheer v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system".

12. In State of Karnataka v. Appu Balu Ingele, AIR 1993 SC 1126=II (1992) CCR 458 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. In Pathumma and Anr. v. Muhammad, AIR 1986 SC 1436, the Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact".

13. Learned counsel for the revisionists failed to point out any illegality, impropriety or perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned court below. On the perusal of the entire judgment of the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court and in exercising the power under revisional jurisdiction I find that there is no irregularity or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned trial court and re-appreciation of the evidence is not desirable and therefore, learned trial court and learned appellate court has rightly punished the accused/revisionists.

14. So far as incarceration period of revisionists, considering the nature of injury inflicted on the injured and bad economic condition of the revisionists I am of the view that the seven years imprisonment is too harsh and therefore, seven years imprisonment is reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment and the incarceration period of the revisionists shall be set off from the period already undergone. The fine clause shall be unaltered and shall be as per the order of the learned court below. Compensation amount, which is payable to the victim is increased from 50% to 80%.

15. In view of the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the revisionists under Section 326, 506 I.P.C. are confirmed but the rigorous imprisonment of seven years is reduced to five years. All the sentence shall run concurrently but the fine clause shall be unaltered. 80% of fine deposited by the revisionists shall be payable to all the victims/injured the informant's three daughters Parveen, Anjum and Sahin and wife of the first informant Smt. Shahjahan in equal shares.

16. The revision is finally decided in the aforesaid terms.

17. Lower court record along with order of this Court shall be transmitted back to the trial court concerned for necessary compliance.

Order Date:-3.3.2021.

Anuj Singh.