Surendra Pal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

G.D Dube, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, upholding the conviction of the revisionists u/s 323 IPC only and reducing the sentence of a fine of Rs. 750/- only.

It has been urged that originally a complaint was filed against four persons. The two ladies were acquitted by the trial court. The revisionists ware found guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 506, IPC under each of the counts, they were sentenced to three months RI u/s 323, IPC they were also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- each also but out of this amount Rs. 200/- was to be paid to the complainant. The lower appellate court had upheld the conviction and modified the order as stated above.

It has been argued that part of the prosecution story was not believed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Hence, on the same evidence, the revisionists could not be convicted u/s 323 IPC.

The opposite party has appeared and this case is being disposed of at the admission stage.

The contention of learned Counsel for the revisionists is not correct. It transpires from the very beginning i.e. from the stage of the statement of the complainant u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure the role of catching hold of the complainant was assigned to the two ladies accused. The lower court had given benefit of doubt to these two lady accused. The ingredient of Section 506, IPC was also not found established. As regards the two applicants, the facts relating to their voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant was found established. There are concurrent findings in this respect. Hence this Court will not interfere unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the two courts below are perverse. There is no material on record to substantiate any contention that the findings of the two courts below are not based on evidence produced before the trial court.

Lastly it has been argued that the applicants have already deposited Rs. 200/- and the sentence of fine of Rs. 750/- should be reduced to the amount already deposited. In the alternative it has also been argued that they may be asked to furnish bonds and remain on probation. Since the appellate court has reduced the sentence to a fine only and the fine is of Rs. 750/-only each, I find that a very lenient view has been taken. There is no justification to interfere.

The revision is rejected. Let the remaining fine be deposited. The stay order granted earlier is vacated.