Court No. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 52 of 1996 Petitioner :- Ram Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Prem Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Alok K. Singh,J.
List revised. None responds for the revisionist.
Heard learned AGA and perused the record.
It comes out from the record that the revisionist was convicted by the learned
Magistrate concerned under Section 354 IPC and he was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in
default to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. This
judgment was rendered on 31.03.1995 which was challenged before the lower
appellate court but the appeal was dismissed on 28.02.1996. The incident of
06.01.1990 i.e. about 20 years old. The prosecution examined Savitri Devi
(P.W.1), Puttu (P.W.2), Nihal Singh (P.W.3), H.C. Bhai Deen (P.W.4) and
S.I. Satish Chandra Ojha (P.W.5) in support of the case. The accused in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P:.C. said that Savitri Devi happened to be his
sister-in-law (Sali) who wanted to live with him as his wife. and when he
refused to do so he was falsely implicated. In defence two witnesses, namely
Sant Ram (D.W.1) and Goli (D.W.2) were examined.
It has come in evidence of Savitri Devi herself that with a view to outrage her
modesty the accused caught hold of her and tried to knock her down. This
statement has been corroborated by two witnesses, namely Puttu (P.W.2 and
Nihal Singh (P.W.3) who are natural and independent witnesses. All the three
witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing came out to create any
doubt. The substantive evidence adduced by the aforesaid witnesses was
found to be reliable and inspiring confidence and, therefore, the learned
Magistrate convicted and sentenced the revisionist in the aforesaid manner.
In appeal also the entire evidence was re-appraised but nothing substantial
was found to justify any interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
with an observation that the learned Magistrate ought to have given rigorous
imprisonment instead of simple imprisonment. But that was a sort of advice
given to the learned Magistrate. As far as sentence is concerned it remained
intact.
I have carefully gone through both the concurrent judgments of the courts
below and regret in not finding any substance which may justify interference
by this Court. There does not appear to be any illegality or irregularity. It
also does not appear that either of the courts below have not exercised the
jurisdiction vested in them or have exceeded it jurisdiction.
The revision is, therefore, rejected. Inform all concerned.
Order Date :- 18.1.2010
Shaakir/