High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kallu & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 169 of 1986  RD-AH 5945 (18 November 2005)
Criminal Revision No.169 of 1986
Kallu and Ram Das Vs. State of U.P.
This criminal revision has been directed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 16.1.1986 passed by Sri Maharaj Din, Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal no.177 of 1984, Kallu and another vs. State whereby the appeal was partly dismissed and their sentence was reduced to undergo R.I. for six months each under Section 380 I.P.C. and Section 457 I.P.C. in place of R.I. for one year for each of the each offence.
Brief facts, arising out of this criminal revision, are that during the night intervening between 13/14.8.1983 at about 1 a.m. five or six miscreants break into and entered the house of the complainant Ram Dayal, situated in village Mirpur, P.S. Sikandrarao, District Aligarh. The women folk and children were sleeping under the thatch and the complainant was sleeping in his Gher. A lantern was kept alighted in the house. By the noise of box and utensil, the women woke up and raised alarm, which attracted Nem Singh, Moji Ram, Ramvir, Madan Pal and other residents of the village. They chased the miscreants and in the light of torches, two of the miscreants namely accused Kallu and Ram Das were recognized and identified.
The report of the incident was not lodged at the police station. The complainant made application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh on 7.9.1983 on the basis of which chick F.I.R. was prepared and the case was registered in the general diary on 21.9.1983 by clerk constable Ghoorey Lal. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I.Satya Prakash Sharma. After completion of the investigation, he submitted chargesheet before the trial court against the accused on 22.10.1983 for the offence under Sections 380 and 457 I.P.C.. They were charged in the same offences.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Ram Dayal, P.W.2 Moji Ram, P.W.3 Ghoorey Lal and P.W.4 S.I. Satya Prakash Sharma. No any oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of both the accused in their defence.
Thereafter learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, so, being aggrieved by his judgement and order, the Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1984, Kallu and another vs. State has been preferred.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal had been dismissed on merits.
The order of conviction was upheld and the order of sentence was modified to the extent that both the appellants were undergone rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months instead of one year under Section 380 I.P.C. and further period of six months instead of one year under Section 457 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved it both the accused have preferred the present Criminal Revision.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of this revision.
The case of accused-revisionist Kallu son of Ved Ram has already been abated.
It has been argued that this is the very old case of year 1983 and revisionist is an old man. Therefore, lenient view should be taken in awarding the sentence already undergone by him. It has been argued on behalf of respondent that appellate court has not committed any illegality.
There is no dispute that accused revisionist is an old man. He is appearing in this case from the year 1983, about 19 years have elapsed during the pendency of criminal case, criminal appeal and criminal revision.
After perusal of the record of this revision it appears that the criminal appeal was dismissed on 16.1.1986 and he was taken into custody to serve out the sentence. Thereafter, he was bailed out by the Hon. Court vide order dated 12.2.86.
After considering the age, old case and his detention period it would be justified to reduce the sentence of revisionist to the period already undergone with a fine.
In view of discussions made above, I come to the conclusion that this criminal revision of the revisionist Ram Das, is partly allowed. The order of conviction of both the courts below, is upheld and the order of sentence is modified to the extent by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.1000/- in each offence in place of R.I. for a period of six months in each offence under Sections 380 and 457 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine he shall also undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
Revisionist is on bail in this revision. Therefore, his personal bond and sureties bonds are cancelled and his sureties are discharged.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.