High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Indrajeet Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4285 of 2006  RD-AH 20799 (10 December 2006)
Criminal Revision No. 4285 of 2006
Indrajeet Singh and others......................................Revisionists.
State of U.P. and another.......................................Opposite Parties.
Hon. Vinod Prasad, J
The three revisionists Indrajeet Singh, Sarwan Kumar and Smt. Prema Devi were tried by CJM, Kanpur Dehat, in Case No. 854/2001 State versus Indrajeet Singh and others u/s 323, 325 and 504 IPC, P.S. Chaube Pur, district Kanpur Dehat.
The short allegations of the prosecution against the revisionists were that there was a dispute between the informant Ramesh Kumar and the present revisionists applicants regarding a septic tank. Under the orders of SDM, Bilhaur, the Police had got the septic tank filled up. Ramesh Kumar informant was removing the extra soil collected besides the said pit on which the three revisionists accused belaboured and abused him filthily. Informant Ramesh Kumar lodged a FIR u/s 323 and 504 IPC, at P.S. Chaubepur, district Kanpur Dehat. The medical examinations of the injured was got done by the police. According to the medical report the injured had received grievous injury and subsequently the FIR of cognizable offences as Crime No. 122/92 u/s 323, 325 and 504 IPC (Ex. Ka 4) was registered against the accused revisionists by the police. After usual investigation the police submitted a charge sheet accused persons who were summoned for offences u/s 323, 325 and 504 IPC by the concerned Magistrate. In the trial the prosecution examined Ramesh Kumar (informant) as P.W. 1, Sundar Lal P.W. 2, Pappu P.W. 3, Santosh Kumar P.W. 4, Constable Ram Shiromani Shukla P.W. 5, Dr. K. Swaroop P.W. 6 and Constable Jageshwar Dayal P.W. 7. In their statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. the revisionists accused persons denied the prosecution allegations and the criminating circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidences and took the defence of false implication.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat finding the case of the prosecution proved to the hilt against the revisionists accused, convicted them u/s 323, 325 and 504 IPC and sentenced each of them for six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the first count, six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count and six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- on the third count. He further ordered that in default of payment of fine imposed on the accused revisionists they will further under go one week simple imprisonment vide his judgment and order dated 2.12.2004.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentences by the trial court, the three revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2004, which was heard and decided by I Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Kanpur Dehat vide his judgment and order dated 26.7.2006. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal on merits and sentences in respect of revisionists Indrajeet Singh and Sarwan Kumar. However, the appellate court while confirming the convictions of accused Smt. Prema Devi, set aside the sentence awarded to her and released her on probation of good conduct for a period of six months on her executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/-and two sureties each in the like amount. Since the revisionists were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above, hence they have filed the present revision in this court challenging their convictions and sentences.
I have heard Sri R.D. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists in support of this revision and the learned AGA in opposition.
Sri R.D. Singh failed to show any illegality on the merits of the matter and ultimately conceeded that the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below are fully justified and no illegality can be pointed out in them. He further contended that the incident had taken place on 8.6.1992 at 9.30 A.M. and 14 years have elapsed since then and therefore to send the revisionists Indrajeet Singh and Sarwan to Jail at this belated stage will not meet the ends of justice. He further contended that the incident had taken place all of a sudden at the spur of the moment and the injured had received injuries on elbow and left hand. However, a fracture was detected in the elbow of his left hand. He contended that it will be in the interest of justice that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the revisionists Indrajeet Singh and Sarwan, be commuted to one under fine.
Learned AGA on the other hand contended that six months simple imprisonment is adequate sentence for the offence u/s 325 IPC. He further contended that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently therefore, sentences awarded on the aforesaid two revisionists is not excessive.
I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides.
So far as revisionist no. 3 Prema Devi is concerned, I do not find any justification to reduce her period of probation awarded to her by the lower appellate court by its impugned judgment and order dated 26.7.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 62/ 2004. Consequently, this revision so far as Prema Devi revisionist is concerned, is dismissed.
However, so far as the revisionists no. 1 and 2 Indrajeet Singh and Sarwan are concerned, it is perceptable that the incident had taken place all of a sudden on 8.6.1992 with regard to the dispute of septic tank which was already going on and hankered by the said dispute assault was made on the informant Ramesh Kumar. There was no conviction of the two revisionists nor they had any criminal history. CJM, Kanpur Dehat while convicting the revisionists on 2.12.2004 had not mentioned any cogent reason in his impugned judgment for not releasing the revisionist on probation as is contemplated u/s 360 Cr. P.C. Under section 284 Cr. P.C. relating to warrant trial, it has been provided in sub section (2) thereof that "Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not proceed in accordance with provisions of section 325 or section 360, he shall, after hearing the accused on question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law." This sub clause therefore, mandates that the accused should be released u/s 360 Cr. P.C. and if the Magistrate does not find him entitled to be dealt with under the aforesaid section, then he will pass a sentence on him. Section 325 Cr. P.C. deals with those cases where the Magistrate finds that the accused deserve more severe sentence, which he is empowered to inflict, and in that situation he will submit the case to the CJM for passing appropriate sentence. This section 325 Cr.P.C., for the purpose of the present revision is not applicable in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the CJM himself. So far as section 360 Cr. P.C. is concerned it provides that the accused be released on probation of good conduct or after an admonition. Section 361 Cr. P.C. further provides that where the court could have dealt with an accused person u/s 360 Cr. P.C. but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so. In the present case I find that CJM Kanpur Dehat even though could have released the revisionist on probation of good conduct, however, he did not do so and instead convicted them for imprisonment but without assigning any special reasons. Therefore, it is perceptibly is clear that the trial court has not followed the mandate of law as is provided u/s 361 Cr. P.C. It has been held by this court that recording of the special reasons in the case the accused is not released on probation is a must. Reference may be made to the following judgments:-
Om Prakash versus State of M.P. AIR 1982 SC 783, Ram Deen versus State of M.P. 1986 CCRJ 57, Jai Prakash versus State 1979 Cr.L.J. 1167, Surendra Kumar versus State of Rajasthan AIR 1979 SC 1048, Ved Prakash versus State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 643, Dilbag Singh versus State of Punjab 1979 ACC 104 Satto versus State of U.P. 1979 Cr. L.J. 943.
In the present case, the judgment passed by the trial court does not seems to be in accordance with section 361 Cr. P.C. However, the occurrence had taken place more than 14 years ago at a spur of the moment and no injury was caused to the injured on the torso. Since both the parties are neighbors and after a long time they must have settled their disputes and also because there is no bad antecedent against the two revisionists I consider it appropriate not to send them to jail at this belated stage and consider it appropriate to convert the period of imprisonment awarded to them in to one under fine.
Resultantly, this revision is dismissed in respect of Smt. Prema Devi revisionist No. 3. However, the revision is partly allowed in respect of revisionists Indrajeet Singh and Sarwan Kumar. While maintaining their convictions for the offences u/s 323, 325 IPC, I commute their sentences of imprisonment of six months each on both the counts into one under fine, which is quantified as Rs. 7,000/- each for both the offences. Total amount of fine of Rs. 14, 000/- shall be realized from both of the revisionists Indrajeet Singh and Sarwan Kumar. After realization of fine as is awarded here, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the informant Ramesh Kumar as compensation. The two revisionists Indrajeet Singh and Sarwan Kumar be released from jail forthwith on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20, 000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Kanpur Dehat. They are allowed two months' time to deposit the amount of fine as has been awarded to them by this judgment. After depositing the amount of the fine, the CJM, Kanpur Dehat is directed to discharge their bail bonds and sureties bonds and will reimburse the compensation to the informant forthwith.
If the total amount of fine of Rs. 14,000/- awarded on the two revisionists Indrajeet Singh and Sarwan Kumar for both the offences mentioned above is not deposited within the allotted time, CJM, Kanpur Dehat will issue Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest against them and will send them to Jail to serve out the sentences awarded to them by it.
With the aforesaid alteration in sentences this revision is partly allowed.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the CJM, Kanpur Dehat within two weeks from today.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.