Dal Chand and another v State of Uttar Pradesh
Allahabad High Court
3 July 2013
Criminal Revision No. 1598 of 2010
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against Judgment & order dated 15.4.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2004 Dal Chandra and another Vs. State of U.P. by which the appeal has been dismissed and the conviction awarded by the trial Court has been upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that there were four assailants out of which one Smt. Pooran Devi had expired. It has also been submitted that on the same evidence another co- accused Chiman has been acquitted. It has also been submitted that the incident took place in the year 1995 and the accused persons have already been in jail for some period therefore, a lenient view may be taken.
Learned AGA has defended the impugned order.
4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order and also other materials on record. It is settled position of law that High Court will exercise its revisional power where there is a material error or defect in law or procedure, misconception or misreading of evidence, failure to exercise or wrong exercise of jurisdiction or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any offence.
5. As a broad proposition, the interference may be justified (a) where the decision is grossly erroneous; (b) where there is no compliance with the provisions of law; (c) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on the evidence; (d) where the material evidence of the parties has not been considered; and (e) where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
6. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond its power and jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision petition. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Kerala Vs. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri”, AIR 1999 SC 981 1999 Indlaw SC 429, has held that the High Court while hearing revisions does not work as a Appellate Court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done.
7. Hon’ble the Apex Court in “Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh”, AIR 2002 SC 2229 2002 Indlaw SC 320, has held that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error or point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In “Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others” AIR 2002 SC 107 2001 Indlaw SC 21128, it has been further held that while exercising the revisional powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do.
8. Hon’ble the Apex Court in “State Of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others”, AIR 1993 SC 1126 1992 Indlaw SC 205, has held that generally speaking, concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two courts below are not to be interfered with by the High Court in absence of any special circumstances or if same are perverse in any manner.
9. A report was lodged against revisionists at crime no.106 of 1995 alleging that accused persons had beaten the complainant by Lathi & Danda by which she has received the injuries. The complainant was medically examined and in the medical examination, it was found that there was fracture on right forearm. After submission of the charge-sheet, the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 & 325/34 IPC were framed against the revisionists. The prosecution has examined complainant Smt. Badami PW.1, Gaya Prasad PW.2, Ram Khiladi PW.3, Dr. V.P. Sharma PW.4 and S.I. Irendra Singh as PW.5. In the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons had denied the incident. S.I. Irendra Singh PW.5 had proved the investigation as well as the prosecution papers and Dr. V.P. Sharma PW.4 has proved the medical examination.
10. Other witnesses are the witnesses of fact. Smt. Badami PW.1 who is the complainant has supported the version of first information report which has been corroborated by the statements of Ram Khiladi PW.2 and Gaya Prasad PW.3 .
11. Learned Court below after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that revisionists are guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 & 325/34 IPC by Judgment and order dated 15.10.2004 and they were sentenced for an imprisonment of six months with fine for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC and with imprisonment of two years each for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC.
12. The said Judgment of the trial Court was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2004 before the Sessions Judge, Aligarh and the Sessions Judge, Aligarh after hearing both the parties, has confirmed the findings of the trial Court and has dismissed the appeal.
13. Both the learned Courts below have categorically appreciated the evidence on record and both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that revisionists are guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 & 325/34 IPC. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below and they have appreciated the evidence in detail. The findings are based on cogent reasons supported by evidence on record.
I do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned findings.
14. As far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the incident took place in the year 1995. The complainant had got the injury of fracture apart from other simple injuries. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists are old persons and they are facing the trauma of litigation since last 18 years therefore, lenient view may be taken.
15. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the injuries sustained by the complainant and the period of litigation, the sentences awarded to the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC is reduced to one month simple imprisonment along with fine as awarded by the Court below. Sentence awarded under Section 325/34 IPC is modified to two months rigorous imprisonment along with fine as awarded by the trial Court. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period already undergone shall be set of.
The revision is partly allowed with the aforesaid modifications.
16. The revisionists are directed to appear before the trial Court within 30 days from today to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which the trial Court shall be at liberty to take coercive steps for their arrest.
17. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court below at an early date and the lower Court record be also sent back to the lower Court at an early date.
Revision partly allowed
