High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nepal Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1058 of 1987  RD-AH 180 (3 January 2006)
Court No. 2
Criminal Revision No. 1058 of 1987
Nepal Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
This revision is preferred against the judgement and order dated 6.7.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Etah, in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1986 whereby the appeal was dismissed affirming the judgement and order dated 30.8.1986 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Etah whereby revisionists Nepal Singh and Jaipal Singh were convicted and sentenced under section 148 I.P.C. for one year R.I., under section 324 I.P.C. for 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, convicted under section 323 read with section 149 I.P.C. for six months R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- each and the revisionist Damber Singh was convicted and sentenced under section 147 I.P.C. of six months R.I., under section 323 read with section 149 I.P.C. for six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and other under section 324 read with section 149 I.P.C. for 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000- and in default of the payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of 6 months R.I. and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
The report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 5.4.2004 shows that the revisionist Damber Singh has died. Therefore, revision filed on behalf of Damber Singh is abated. The revision on behalf of Nepal Singh and Jaipal Singh is under consideration.
Heard Sri Ghanshyam Joshi learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.
The learned counsel for the revisionists states that he is not pressing this revision on its merits but the present revision is pressed on the quantum of sentence only.
To consider the quantum of sentence it is necessary to consider the nature of the case and its gravity. According to the prosecution version it appears that there was a dispute between the husband and wife, consequently the alleged occurrence had taken place. It is said that one Ram Pal Singh, the brother of the first informant Raj Pal Singh was married with Smt. Saroj Devi. Smt Saroja Devi was at her husband's house, her brother revisionist Nepal Singh had gone to her in-laws house for calling her sister but she was not sent with him by her in-laws who refused to send her because there was a lot of work. Therefore, some altercation took place between the mother of Raj Pal and the revisionist Nepal Singh. On the next day i.e. 23.9.1985 at about5 p.m. first informant Rajpal was operating his Flour Mills, the revisionists and four or five other persons came there. The revisionists Nepal Singh and Jai Pal Singh were armed with country made pistol and the remaining miscreants were armed with lathies. Raj Pal was caught hold by them and it was asked by the miscreants to tie up him for taking away, on hue and cry of the mother of Raj Pal Virendra Singh, Pusey, Mulayam Singh and Karan Singh and some others villagers came there and tried to rescue the first informant Raj Pal Singh then the revisionists Nepal Singh and Jai Pal Singh fired and the remaining miscreants caused injuries by using lathies blows. Consequently, Raj Pal Singh, Virendra Singh brother of Mulayam Singh, Pusey, Karan Singh and Smt. Reshma Devi received injuries. The medical examination report shows that the injured Virendra Singh had received fire arm injuries on the left forearm. The injury report of Smt. Reshma Devi shows that she had received a contusion swelling on the left shoulder. The injury report of Pusey shows that he had received firm arm injury on the right thigh and on auxiliary region and left of the stomach. The injury report of Karan Singh shows that he has received lacerated would on the head and the injury report of Mulayam Singh shows that he has received four injuries. Injury no.1 was a lacerated would. Injury nos. 2 and 4 are abrasions. Injury no. 3 was contusion. The injury report of Nepal Singh shows that he has received three injuries in which injury nos. 1 and 3 are complaint and injury no.2 was abrasion. All the injuries were simple in nature.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the alleged occurrence was not pre-intended. Both the parties are related with each other and the alleged occurrence had taken place only because the sister of the revisionists Nepal Singh was not sent by her in-laws which was resulted in the subsequent mar-peet and the alleged occurrence had taken place on 23.9.1985, more than 20 years have been passed after the alleged occurrence. The circumstances arose due to this incident would have been totally changed and the bitterness would have come to an end. The revisionists have remained in jail for about one month and they have deposited half of the fine awarded by the trial court. In such a situation, it will not be proper to send them to jail again to serve the remaining unserved sentence. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial court may be modified.
I agree with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionists because after the alleged occurrence more than 20 years have passed. The alleged occurrence was not pre-intended because the sister of revisionists Nepal Singh was married with the brother of the first informant. The alleged occurrence was happened only because the sister of the revisionist Nepal Singh was not sent by her in-laws therefore he lost the balance and on the next date the alleged occurrence was committed. The injuries received by the injured are simple in nature. In case, the revisionists are again sent to jail, it will revive bitterness between the parties after a long period of 20 years. The bitterness between the parties would have come to an end. To meet the ends of justice it will be proper to modify the sentence awarded by the trial court.
In view of the discussion, the order convicting the revisionists 1 and 2 Nepal Singh and Jai Pal Singh is upheld but the sentenced is modified as the revisionists Nepal Singh and Jai Pal Singh are sentenced under section 148 I.P.C for a period already undergone and with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the remaining unserved period, under section 324 I.P.C.for the period already undergone and with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in addition to fine Rs. 1000/- as awarded by the trial court, under section 323 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. for the period already undergone and with fine of Rs. 500/- each in addition to fine of Rs. 500/- each as awarded by the trial court and in default of payment aforementioned fine the revisionist shall serve the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial court.
It is clarified that if any amount in respect of fine has already deposited by the revisionist the same shall be adjusted and the remaining amount shall be deposited by them in the court concerned within four months from today. The revisionists are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.
This revision is partly allowed.
A copy of the order may be communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned forthwith for compliance.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.