Raju vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bulandshahr convicted the present Appellant Raju S/o Jagat Singh, R/o Mohalla Tar Ki Mandi, Kasba and Police Station Mogha, district Ludhiyana (Punjab) for offences u/s 452/307, I.P.C. vide his impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2006 and sentenced him for a period of three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 500 on the first count, in default of payment of fine, Appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, four years R.I. with fine of Rs. 500 on the second count, u/s 307, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to go 15 days further imprisonment. It was also recorded by the trial Judge that the Appellant was in jail since last 15 months on the date on which he was convicted and sentenced (21.11.2006) and the said period of 15 months shall be set off from the conviction awarded by him by the impugned judgment.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentences, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

Initially, the appeal was beyond limitation. However, vide order dated 13.2.2007, this Court was pleased to condone the delay and admitted the appeal. The record was summoned for consideration of bail prayer of the Appellant, which was received in this Court, however, the bail to the Appellant was rejected on 13.3.2007.

The appeal came up before me when it was stated by Sri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant has practically served out total period of sentence and, therefore, the appeal be finally heard, after dispensing preparation of paper book.

Today when the appeal came up before me, it transpired that the Appellant had only 22 days left for serving out for the complete sentence awarded though the impugned judgment, as he was convicted on 21.11.2006 and it was ordered that the period of sentence of fifteen months, already undergone by him, shall be set off from the said conviction of four years. The Appellant was in jail since 3rd of August, 2005 in the instant crime, under remand orders and, therefore, his period of sentence shall run from the said date 3rd of August, 2005. In such a view, the Appellant will undergo full term of his awarded sentence on 3rd of August, 2009 and he has to be released from jail on the said date.

The charge against the Appellant was that, Sukhdev father of informant Lokesh was assaulted in the intervening night of 30/31.7.2005 at 2 a.m. The miscreants had, initially belaboured the father. However, when the informant and his mother tried to intervene then the mother was also beaten. Bheem, the brother-in-law, of the informant was also assaulted by the miscreants with blunt objects, when many people started collecting on the spot, then the miscreants resorted to firing while escaping. The assailants were bearing underwear and under garment (baniyan). The injured persons were got admitted in the hospital and a case was registered. During the course of the investigation, the complicity of the Appellant was disclosed and, therefore, a charge-sheet was laid against him under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C. and the Appellant was charged with the aforesaid offences.

The prosecution in order to support its case examined P.W. 1 Lokesh, P.W. 2 Sukhdev, P.W. 3 Dr. Ashok Kumar, P.W. 4 constable Mahendra Singh and P.W. 5 S.I. Faggan Singh.

The Appellant, u/s 313, Cr. P.C. took the defence that he has been falsely implicated and the witnesses are giving false testimony. In support of his defence he had examined D.W. 1, Smt. Maya.

The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully brought the guilt of the Appellant home and, therefore, it convicted and sentenced him as stated above, which sentences and convictions are under challenge in the instant appeal.

On the said facts, I have heard Sri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. in opposition.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Appellant, I am of the opinion that since after 22 days, the appeal will become infructuous, therefore, I hereby dispense with the preparation of the paper book and hear the appeal on merits.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant has been convicted at the first instance and the maximum part of sentence, he had already undergone and, therefore, the remaining part of sentence be remitted/set aside so that the Appellant may be released from jail as only 22 days are left for completion of his sentences.

After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that the prosecution has successfully established the charge against the Appellant and therefore his conviction has been rightly recorded and no fault can be found, in that respect, in the impugned judgment of the trial court. However, the Appellant, who is a very poor person, should be released from jail by remitting rest of the part of his sentence and therefore he should be sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

The appeal is allowed in part. While the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 452/307, I.P.C. recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bulandshahr in State v. Raju, S.T. No. 1183 of 2005 (relating to Crime No. 330 of 2005), u/s 452/307, I.P.C., P. S. Khurjanagar, district Bulandshahr, is hereby maintained but the sentence of the Appellant is altered to the period of sentence already undergone by him. I also hereby set aside the fine awarded on the Appellant on both the above offences.

The Appellant is directed to set at liberty from jail in the aforesaid session''s trial for the aforesaid offences, unless he is incarcerated in their connection with any other case for any other offences, under the legal orders.