High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Narayan Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 251 of 1987  RD-AH 7682 (16 December 2005)
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 251 OF 1987
Narain Singh and others . . . . .Vs. . . . . . . . State of U.P.
This is a revision against judgment and order dated 30.1.1987 passed by Sri D.P. Gupta, then Special Judge/Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal no. 187 of 1984, Narain Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that on 5.5.1974 a first information report was lodged by Ramji Lal at police station Mursan district Aligarh at 1.45 P.M. with the allegation that on the aforesaid date at about 11.30 A.M. accused Ram Dayal, Bhuri Singh, Shiv Charan and Nathi were digging soil in his land at village Banka and when Ramji Lal prohibited them from doing so they started to beat him and his associates with Lathis and Dandas etc. and threatened to kill them. On the basis of this report a NCR under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered against the above named accused persons. Injuries of Ramji Lal were medically examined on the same day at 3 P.M. and a perusal of that injury report reveals that he had received as many as 14 injuries upon his body and all the injuries were fresh in the opinion of the doctor. The injuries of his uncle were also medically examined that very day at 3.45 P.M. and he had two injuries on his body including one incised wound upon his head.
Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint against the above named four accused persons and 12 others under sections 147, 149, 307, 452, 323, 324 and 34 I.P.C. in which it was alleged that the above accused persons having spades and Chhabre in their hands attacked Ramji Lal and when he had prohibited them from digging soil from his land and when he went inside his house to protect himself the accused also entered his house and dragged him outside the house and started to beat him with Lathis and when his uncle Prabhu Dayal came after hearing the noise, he was also beaten and the accused Bhuri Singh had given him Ballam blow, and Narain Singh had also received injuries in this incident. It was further stated that thereafter the complainant and his uncle were taken to police station but the police did not correctly write the facts narrated by them and registered a non-cognizable case only. Hence, they filed this complaint.
After taking evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate summoned six accused only,i.e. Ram Dayal, Shiv Charan, Nathi, Narain Singh, Teekam and Bhuri Singh under sections 147, 323 and 324 I.P.C.
The complainant produced himself as P.W.1, Munshi P.W.2, Kishan Singh P.W.3, Talewar Singh P.W. 4 and Sri M.S. Chaudhari, Pharmacist P.W.5. The accused denied the prosecution allegation in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. and produced S.I. Sri Sharad Chandra Chaturvedi as D.W.1.
The learned Magistrate after hearing of the case came to the conclusion that the case was sufficiently proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It may be mentioned that accused Bhuri Singh died during pendency of the case and the case abated against him. The remaining accused were convicted and sentenced under sections 147, 323/149, 324/149 and 452 I.P.C. Aggrieved with this judgment and order the accused filed Criminal Appeal no. 187 of 1984. This appeal was heard and decided by Sri D.P.Gupta, then Special Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh. He confirmed the conviction of all the accused persons but reduced the sentence and passed the order of three months R.I. under section 147, I.P.C., two months R.I. under section 323/149 I.P.C. and three months R.I. under section 324/149 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Aggrieved with that judgment and order, the accused filed this revision.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The learned counsel for the revisionists first of all submitted before me that a perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that it was a case of simple Marpit under section 323 I.P.C. allegedly committed by four accused persons named therein and the complainant had given exaggerated version in the complaint and falsely implicated 12 more persons introducing the allegation of causing injuries by spades and Ballam etc. The allegation of the complainant on the other side is that the accused were more in number and they were armed with spades, and Ballam etc. and had caused as many as 14 injuries to him, which is apparent from the injury report and two injuries were also caused to Prabhu Dayal, his uncle including the injury of Ballam on his head which was caused by Bhuri. The allegation was that the police with a view to reduce the gravity of the offence registered the report of non-cognizable offence under section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. only. This version of the complainant taking into consideration the injury reports of the complainant and Prabhu Dayal has been accepted by the both the courts below and I do not find any perversity in the finding.
It was further submitted that the witness Talevar Singh P.W.4 was not named in the F.I.R. and the witness Biru Singh named in the F.I.R. has not been produced and so adverse inference should be drawn against the complainant. The ruling of this Court in Sharif Vs. State 1972 A.Cr.R. 881 was also cited in support of this contention. I have carefully gone through this ruling. However, it is to be seen that Munshi named as an eye witness in the F.I.R. has been examined as P.W.2 and the name of Talevar Singh ( P.W. 4 ) finds place in the complaint. As such when the complainant who is himself an eye witness was produced as P.W.1 and Munshi named in the F.I.R. was produced as P.W.2 and Talevar Singh whose name finds place in the complaint was produced as P.W.4, no adverse inference can be drawn on this account that Biru Singh named in the F.I.R. was not produced.
It was further submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuries of accused Narain Singh and so the prosecution case is not trust worthy. He cited a ruling of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Onkar Nath Singh 1972 A. Cr. R. 242 in support of this contention. I have gone through this ruling also. It may be mentioned that the name of Narain Singh does not find place as accused in the F.I.R. He has also not been summoned as accused on the basis of evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He has been named as an accused in the complaint but he was not summoned. Moreover, it has been stated in the complaint that during the course of Marpit Narain Singh had received injury and as such no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.
It was further submitted that it is a cross case. This point was also argued before the courts below and it was repelled by both the courts pointing out that no clearcut defence of cross case was taken by the accused nor any such suggestion was given to the prosecution witnesses in their cross examination.
The position in this way is that there is no merit in this revision. Both the courts below have rightly convicted the accused persons and I find no illegality in the order passed by the aforesaid courts.
The learned counsel for the revisionists in the end submitted that this incident is of the year 1974. The accused were convicted by the trial court on 30.7.1984 and by the appellate court on 30.1.1987 and since then a period of more than 18 years has expired. He further submitted that the accused remained in jail for a period of about ten days after their conviction by the appellate court and they were bailed out under the order of this Court dated 5.2.1987 and so the sentence undergone by them should be considered to be sufficient. It was further submitted that the accused have been convicted and sentenced for two months' R.I. only for the offences under sections 323/149 I.P.C. and to three months R.I. Under section 324/149 I.P.C. 147 I.P.C. and 452 I.P.C. and so after a lapse of such a long period from the date of incident which took place in the year 1974, a lenient view should be taken into the matter and the accused revisionists instead of being sent to jail may be sentenced to fine only. It was also submitted that the accused are not guilty for delay as after filing of the revision in 1987, the first date for its hearing was fixed on 8.12.2003.
Taking into consideration long gap of 31 years from the date of the incident and of 18 years from the date of order of the appellate court , I am of the view that now in the interest of justice the accused instead of sending the accused to jail to serve out the remaining part of the imprisonment, the sentence of fine should be substituted and imposed upon them. I, therefore, while confirming the conviction of the accused revisionists under sections 147, 323/149, 324/149 and 452 I.P.C. modify the order of sentence passed against them and impose fine of Rs.500/- on each of the accused person for each offence committed by him. In other words each accused is sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offences under sections 147, 323/149, 324/149 and 452 I.P.C. and each accused will have to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- ( Rupees two thousand only ). The accused revisionists are allowed four months' time to deposit the amount of fine in the court of the Magistrate concerned and if they fail to do so, they will have to undergo the sentences as ordered by the appellate court.
Thus the revision is partly allowed. So far as conviction of the accused revisionists under sections 147, 323/149, 324/149 and 452 I.P.C. is concerned, their conviction is maintained but the order of sentence passed against them is modified and each accused revisionist is sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- for each offence as mentioned above. They are allowed four months' time to deposit the amount of fine, failing which they shall have to undergo the sentences as ordered by the appellate court.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.