Raj Kumar @ Raja Savita vs State Of U.P.

Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.—This appeal has been filed by the accused-Appellant against the judgment and order dated 14.06.2010 passed by learned Special Session Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Special Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2008 State v. Raj Kumar alias Raja Savita, Case Crime No. 457 of 2008 u/s 328 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Safipur, District Unnao convicting the accused-Appellant for the offence u/s 328 IPC for 4 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine to go two months additional imprisonment. Accused-Appellant was acquitted for the charge u/s 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act.

Appeal already admitted for hearing vide order dated 24.06.2010. On 16.12.2010 appeal was fixed for disposal of bail application during the pendency of the appeal.

Heard learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

At the time of disposal of bail application in appeal, learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant not press the bail application as well as appeal on merit. He stated that accused-Appellant already remained in jail for more than 2 years and requested this Court to take lenient view in the matter in awarding sentence. It was also stated by the learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant that there is no previous criminal history of the accused-Appellant. It was further stated that accused-Appellant is ready to deposit the amount of fine awarded by the learned trial court.

Learned AGA has also not raised any objection if lenient view is taken in the matter in awarding the sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case.

As per prosecution case, informant Sunder Lal''s son Saroj was returning to his home on 03.07.2008. Accused-Appellant offered him "Dal-Moth" (Snack) mixed with some poisonous substance with an intention of robbery and on his request he consumed the same and he became unconscious. He was admitted to the hospital where treatment was given to him and next day he was discharged. Matter was reported to the police and case was registered against the accused-Appellant. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him for the offence u/s 328 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. As the case was exclusively triable by the court of Session, the case was committed to the court of Session. He was charged to face the trial for the aforesaid offences but he pleaded not guilty. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case.

In statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure accused-Appellant had denied the correctness of the prosecution case and pleaded not guilty. No evidence in defence was adduced.

Learned Session Judge after hearing the arguments of parties counsel and perusing the record, by the impugned judgment and order held guilty to the accused-Appellant for the offence u/s 328 IPC and sentenced as above, but he was acquitted for the charge u/s 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act.

As earlier said learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant did not press the appeal on merit but only press the appeal on quantum of the sentence. Moreover on perusal of the judgment and record, I find that learned trial court rejected all the pleas raised on behalf of the accused-Appellant on which the charge leveled were challenged, with cogent reasons. I do not find any reason to differ with the findings of conviction recorded by the trial court in the matter for the offence u/s 328 IPC. Accordingly finding of holding guilty to the accused-Appellant for the offence u/s 328 IPC is hereby confirmed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that alleged occurrence has taken place two years ago and the applicant is not habitual offender. As per own case of the prosecution nothing has been looted by the applicant from the victim. How it was ascertained that poisonous substance was provided to the victim with an intention of loot, it is also not clear from the record. It was further argued that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that there was intention of loot. Anyhow, learned Counsel for the Appellant not pressed the appeal on merit and simply prayed for taking lenient view in awarding the sentence in the matter.

Seeing the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age, character as well as antecedent of the Appellant, I find that it will meet the end of justice if the sentence of the accused is modified and reduced. Accused-Appellant is already in jail from last more than 2 years, which is clear from the impugned judgment also. No useful purpose will be served to further keep him in jail seeing his poor condition. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected as not pressed and appeal is partly allowed. Conviction u/s 328 IPC is maintained but sentence awarded is reduced and modified to the period already undergone by the accused-Appellant and to pay fine awarded by the learned Sessions Judge and in default of payment of fine, he will further undergo sentence for the period stated in the judgment by the learned trial court.

Appeal stand dispose of accordingly. Office to inform immediately to the trial court for doing needful in the matter and report to this Court.