Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM CHANDRA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Chandra v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2199 of 1982 [2007] RD-AH 10240 (28 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.1

                      Crl. Appeal no. 2199 of  1982

Ram Chandra . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .. . .  . .   . . . . . . . . Petitioner.

                                 Versus

State of U.P.. . . . .  .. . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .  . Respondent.                                                 ---                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

       

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 5.8.1982 passed by Sri B.B.L. Hajela, then Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial no. 22 of 1982, State Vs.  Ram Chandra.

The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that  on 8.10.1981 at about 6.30 P.M. a F.I.R. was lodged by  Babu Ram at police station   Bilas Pur district Rampur against the accused appellant with these allegations that Babu Ram resides  in village  Mahtosh police station Bilaspur and the accused also resides in the same village. On the aforesaid date he and his wife  Dallo had gone to their field in the morning  to do  agricultural work there. Their elder daughter Phulawati had also come  to their field with food for them and their younger daughter, Rama Devi aged about five years  was alone at their house. They returned back to their house in the noon and then they noticed that Rama Devi was not there in the house. Then they  enquired  about her and started  to search Rama Devi. Then they heard some cries from  Chaupal of Munna Lal. Then they went towards Chaupal and saw that  Ram Chandra son of   Munna  Lal was ravishing  Rama Devi after shutting her mouth and on seeing Babu Ram and other witnesses  Ram Chandra ran away towards west and could not be apprehended. Then he went to the police station along with his daughter and lodged  the report.

On the basis of the said report police registered a case under section 376 I.P.C. against the accused and investigated the same. After completion of  the investigation ,charge sheet under section 376 I.P.C. was  submitted against the accused. He was charged under section 376 I.P.C.  by the  court and thereafter evidence was taken. After completion of the  evidence and after taking statement of the accused, the learned Presiding Officer heard arguments of both the parties and  then decided the case. He reached  the conclusion in his judgment  that charge under section 376 I.P.C. was not proved against the accused and that the accused  has committed  offence under section 354 I.P.C. only. He, therefore, convicted the accused under section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 18 months'  R.I. and to a fine of Rs.500/-. It was further provided  that  in case of default  in payment of fine, he shall have to undergo  R.I. for  three more months. Aggrieved with that judgment and order the accused  Ram Chandra    filed  this appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

The learned counsel for the appellant made only one submission before me. He submitted that in this case  the alleged offence was committed  on 8.10.1981 and after trial of the case the accused was convicted on 5.8.1982. He further submitted that  charge under section 376  I.P.C. was not found to be proved  against the accused and he was convicted under section 354  I.P.C. only.  He further submitted that offence under section 354 I.P.C.  is punishable  with two years R.I. only and in the present case the accused was awarded 18 months R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-. He further submitted that fine of Rs.500/- had already been deposited before the Magistrate and the accused appellant had already undergone imprisonment of about  eleven months. He submitted that  in this case the accused was not granted bail during trial and so he remained in jail for nine months and  twenty days  during trial of the case  before the lower court. He further submitted that accused was sentenced on 5.8.1982 and he was granted bail  by this Court on 9.9.1982 and in this way  the accused remained in jail  in connection with the above case  for about  eleven months. He further submitted that  the age of the accused  was 18 years    on 27.7.1982 as disclosed in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.  He submitted that  almost a period of 25 years  has passed  from the date of  conviction, and at present age of the accused is 43 years, and under these circumstances, so far as sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the period of  eleven months' imprisonment already undergone by the accused  in jail should be treated to be sufficient  imprisonment and now he should not be required to undergo  remaining part of the sentence of seven months R.I., and this sentence should be commuted and substituted  by the enhanced amount of fine.

I have also heard the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State on the point of sentence.

Considering the facts and circumstances  as well as long gap of 25 years  between the date  of  judgment of the trial court and the  date of hearing of this appeal, I am of the view  that prayer of the learned counsel  for the accused-appellant is justified and so I, holding the period of eleven months imprisonment already undergone by the accused  as sufficient sentence of imprisonment, now order that the accused  shall not be sent again  to jail to undergo the  remaining part  of imprisonment of about seven months, and instead he shall have to pay a fine of  Rs.2,000/( Rupees two thousand ). This amount of fine shall be payable  by him within a period of two months from today and if any part of this amount  of fine has already been deposited by him that shall be liable to be adjusted. In case of default of  payment of the aforesaid amount of  fine, the accused shall have to undergo sentence of imprisonment  as already ordered by the trial court.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of confirming the order of  conviction under section 354 I.P.C. and modifying the sentence, as ordered above.

Dated:28.5.2007

RPP.

                                                                         


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.