Hans Raj And (3) Others. vs State Of U.P. on 5 January, 2010

                                        1

                                                              Court No. 28
                   Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2000

1- Hans Raj
2- Dharamraj
3- Sri Ram
4- Vijay Bahadur                              .......................Revisionists

                               Versus

State of U.P.                                     ...............Opposite Party

                                And


                    Criminal Revision No. 182 of 2000

Jai Prakash                                     .......................Appellant

                               Versus

State of U.P.                                     ...............Opposite Party

Hon'ble Alok K. Singh, J.

Vide order dated 08.12.2003 passed by this Court, Criminal Revisions

Nos. 195 of 2000 and 182 of 2000 have been connected. Therefore both these

revisions are being decided by this common judgment.

Under challenge in these revisions are the concurrent judgments

passed by both the courts below in Criminal Case No.305 of 1983 convicting

all the five revisionists (4+1) under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149

I.P.C. and sentencing them as under:-

(1) Under Section 147 I.P.C. — Three months’ R.I.

(2) Under Section 148 I.P.C. – Three months’ R.I.

(3) Under Section 323/149 I.P.C.– Three months’ R.I.

(4) Under Section 325/149 I.P.C.– Two years’ R.I. with a fine of

Rs.100/- each, in default ten days’ additional simple imprisonment.

All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently by the Second
2

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case No.2004 of

1995 (Hans Raj and others Versus State of U.P.). The judgment passed

by the trial court was challenged in Appeal No. 82 of 1998 which was

dismissed on 17.05.2000 by Eighth Additional Sessions Judge.

Heard Sri M.S. Khan, learned counsel for some of the

revisionists and on behalf of Sri S. B. Mathur, Advocate for other revisionist

and also Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate and

perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the revisionists confines his submissions on

the point of quantum of sentence only and, therefore, this Court is not

adverting to other grounds of revisions. For the same reasons it is also not

necessary to mention any facts giving rise to these revisions.

In respect of sentence learned counsel for the revisionists makes

following submissions:–

(1) The incident took place way back in the year 1983 i.e. about 26

years before.

(2) There is only one injured in this case who has received 14

injuries including one fracture in the right hand. But there is no

injury on any vital part of the body.

(3) It is said that on account of some litigation the incident

suddenly took place between both the factions.

(4) Considering the nature of incident all the revisionists were

granted bail by both the court below as well as by this Court

which they have not misused till date.

(5) Both the factions reside in rural area and are living peacefully
3

since then.

(6) The revisionists have already suffered sufficient mental agony

and stress on account of pendency of this criminal matter for the

last about 26 years.

(7) All the revisionists have grown quite old on account of long

period of 26 years.

(8) All the revisionists have already undergone a period of about

one month of simple imprisonment including the period during

trial and also during pendency of this appeal. They are ready to

pay a sumptuous amount of compensation.

(9) He also submits that neither the revisionists are habitual offenders

nor previous convicts and as such a lenient view may be taken in

respect of quantum of sentence and it may be accordingly

reduced.

Learned A.G.A. has nothing to say substantial against it except

that the conviction has been concurrently upheld by both the courts below

which should not be disturbed.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the conviction

recorded concurrently by both the courts below under the aforesaid sections

are upheld but the sentence is modified in the following manner:–

Under Section 147 I.P.C. — Period of imprisonment already undergone.

Under Section 148 I.P.C. – Period of imprisonment already undergone.

Under Section 323/149 I.P.C.–Period of imprisonment already undergone.

Under Section 325/149 I.P.C.–Period of imprisonment already undergone

but the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs.100/- to Rs.6000/- each, to be
4

deposited within two months from today, failing which they will have to

undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of six months. The amount of

compensation if realized, will be paid to the injured, Udai Raj/his heirs (in

case of his death).

Accordingly the revision is partly allowed.

Let a copy of this judgment and the lower court record be sent

back through Registrar of this Court for necessary compliance.

05.01.2010
PAL/Crl.Rev. No. 195 of 2000