AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant/complainant to enhance the sentence awarded by the trial Court against the respondent.
It is pertinent to note that vide judgment dated 12.10.1999 passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.1201/99 the respondents No.1 to 4 were convicted for the offences under sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as shows under:-
Trial Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Respondent Sentence Fine Default
-----------------------------------------------------------------
323 IPC No.1,2,3&4 1 month RI - -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
325 IPC No.2 1 Year RI 500/- 1 mnth
No.1, 3 & 4 3mnth RI 500/- 1mnth
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vide judgment dated 26.2.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.104/99 the respondents No.1 to 4 were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Lower Appellate Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Respondent Sentence Fine Default
-----------------------------------------------------------------
323 IPC No.2 500/- 15 days
No.1 250/- 15 days
------------------------------------------------------------------
323/34 No.3 & 4 250/- 15 days
-----------------------------------------------------------------
325 IPC No.1 to 4 Acquitted - -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Un-disputedly the conviction awarded by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur has not been challenged by the respondents No.1 to 4 before this Court.
Hence, it appears that they have rightly been held guilty by the lower appellate Court.
With regard to prayer of the applicant/complainant for enhancement of the punishment awarded by the courts below, this Court considered the prosecution story, which is as under.
On 02.2.1991 at about 9.30 a.m. the son (Om Prakash) of the complainant (Ram Bai), had gone to Gorakhpur to bring animal fodder. At that time the accused/Kashiram came to her husband and made complaint to Rambai that Omprakash had injured him by his bicycle. When complainant's son (Om Prakash) returned to home, he denied the said allegations. On the same day at about 10.30 a.m. all the respondents were accusing him of using filthy language. They caught hold of Ram Bai and inflicted 'lathi' blows on her head. They also caused injuries to her son (Om Prakash). One Virendra Kumar (PW.4) tried to stop all the respondents from assaulting Ram Bai. Kashiram gave him 'lathi' blow. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Complainant (Ram Bai) lodged First Information Report at Police Station, Gorakhpur. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court under section 294, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.\
The trial Court conducted trial. After considering evidence on record, the respondents were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. On preferring appeal the conviction and sentence were modified.
The present revision has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence on the ground that learned trial Court awarded lesser sentence to the accused persons/respondents. They ought not to have been given advantage of delay in the trial. Hence, the complainant prayed to enhance and modify the sentence in the interest as per law.
This Court considered the entire record and contentions made by learned counsel for the parties. This Court finds that respondent-Kashiram was aged about 65 years old in the year 1999 at the time of filing of criminal appeal before the lower appellate Court. The respondents-Shankun Bai and Hira Bai, both were the wives of respondent No.1/Kashiram. Now the age of the respondent No.1 would be around 85 to 90 years. All are family members. They are facing trial since 1991. Order-sheets of the trial Court further indicate that respondents were regularly present before the Court.
Dr.Suresh Kumar Nema (PW.10) stated that Dr.Kumaran had examiend the right hand of Mohan. Dr.J.C.Sehgal (PW.6) proved that Virendra Om Prakash and Rambai had sustained single injuries.
Looking to the aforesaid injuries, in the considered opinion of this Court, the sentence awarded to the accused/respondents by the appellate court below is just and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case. No interference is called for in the impugned sentence.
In the result, the criminal revision is dismissed.