Ram Pratap vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 11415 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 482 of 2008
 

 
Revisionist :- Ram Pratap and another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rishad Murtaza, Ms. Aishwarya Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Singh,Md.Altaf Mansoor
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Vipul Gupta, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against judgment order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Hardoi by means of which Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2006 has been partly allowed and the judgement and order dated 17.8.2006 passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.2169 of 2001, arising out of Case Crime No.30 of 1989, under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi has been modified.

3. Learned appellate court vide impugned judgment and order, has affirmed the order of conviction of the revisionists under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC, however, acquitted them of the offence under Section 504 IPC. The appellate court has also reduced the sentence to six months under Section 323/34 IPC and one year under Section 325/34 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists are real brothers and they are aged about 66 and 68 years respectively. The incident allegedly took place in the year 1989. 33 years have passed since the date of incident. The complainant had died during trial. She further submits that the revisionists have undergone fourteen days imprisonment, and at this distant point of time, instead of sentencing them to jail to serve out the remaining sentence, this Court may increase the fine appropriately. She also submits that she does not want to argue the revision on merit. Submission is that conviction of the revisionists may be confirmed, but the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine may be increased appropriately.

5. Sri Vipul Gupta, learned AGA has no objection to the said submission of learned counsel for the revisionists.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present revision is dismissed so far as the conviction of the revisionists under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC is concerned. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with further fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 325 IPC. Revisionists are directed to deposit the fine of Rs.50,000/- before the trial court within a period of six weeks from today. Out of this amount of Rs.50,000/-, the legal heirs of the complainant shall be paid Rs.45,000/- after due verification. In case of failure to pay the increased fine, the revisionists shall undergo the remaining sentence as awarded by the learned appellate court.

7. Let the trial court record be remitted back forthwith along with a copy of this order.

Order Date :- 29.8.2022

Rao/-