Dod Ram vs State Of U.P.

Shamim Ahmed, J

Heard Sri Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Durvesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Vinay Prakash Shahu, learned counsel for the opposite party.

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.02.1996 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1995: Dod Ram Vs. State of U.P.,confirming the order dated 17.08.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 288/94 State Vs. Dod Ram and Parmeshwari (Parmeshwari having died case against him had abated) arising out of Crime No. 173/89, under Section 326 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District Bareilly convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentence for 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months has been imposed.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present revision is being decided on the question of sentence only.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that maximum sentence provided to the revisionist is three years for offence under Sections 326 I.P.C. The rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of the sentence. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist has undergone a substantial period of punishment and now the revisionist is on parole.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and has submitted that the lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence before it, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

I have perused the impugned judgment and orders as well as record and in my opinion the same do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error which may call for any interference by this Court, hence the conviction and sentence of the revisionists is hereby upheld. But taking in account of the fact that revisionist has already undergone sufficient period in jail as under trial and after conviction by the lower appellate court, his rest of the sentence be converted into a fine.

Accordingly, revisionist is directed to pay and deposit fine of Rs. 50,000/- in the court of C.J.M. concerned out of which Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid to the informant-Tara Chand P.W. 1 and 10,000/- shall go to the State. If the revisionist deposits the aforesaid amount of fine, he shall be released forthwith, if not already released and further if not wanted in any other case.

In default of the fine as directed above, the revisionist shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the courts below.

In view of the above, the revision is partly allowed.

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to C.J.M., concerned for its compliance.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there is Second Bail Application No. 5 of 2021 filed on behalf of the revisionist-Dod Ram is pending, which may be dismissed as not pressed.

Accordingly, the aforesaid second bail application is dismissed as not pressed.