Dinesh and others v State of Uttar Pradesh
Allahabad High Court
3 July 2013
Criminal Appeal CR. P. C. No. 2270 of 1982
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. by Dinesh Kumar, Suresh and Rakesh assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.09.1982 passed by the XI-Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No.380 of 1979, State versus Rakesh Chandra and others whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.
3. The appellants are partners of a Firm M/s R.S. Agrawal & Company whereas complainant Ravindra Kumar is member of the joint Hindu Family and is partner of the firm M/s Harihar Nath & Sons. Both the firms carry-on business of silver and have been transacting with each other in the course of their business. On 1.8.1976 the firm of the accused borrowed loan of Rs.5,000/- from the firm of the complainant M/s Harihar Nath & Sons with a condition that the said amount will be returned on that very day in the evening. The money was not returned as assured. The next day was Monday on which day the market was closed and on Tuesday it transpired that the firm M/s R.S. Agrawal & Company remained closed and further that from the said day it stopped the business in the market. Later on the partners of the firm were reported to be absconding. On 6.8.1976 the accused persons called Harihar Nath father of the complainant Ravindra Kumar and conveyed that in case he wanted his money back he should immediately come at their residence. As conveyed Harihar Nath along with his son Narendra Kumar reached the place of the accused where some disagreement took place in the signing of the receipt as Harihar Nath refused to sign the receipt without receiving the money, whereas the accused persons insisted that the receipt be signed and handed over to them and only then the money would be paid. This disagreement resulted into an altercation and accused persons along with their servants and agents physically assaulted Harihar Nath and his son Narendra Kumar. The accused persons also snatched the wrist watches, the gold chains and scooter of Harihar Nath and his son and left them on the road.
When Ravindra Kumar the complainant went to lodge a report at the Police Station Hariparvat the same was not registered as certain persons having political affiliations were already present at the Police station in support of the accused persons. However on the intervention of the Senior Superintendent of Police a case was registered. Both the injured Harihar Nath and Narendra Kumar were examined at the SW Hospital, Agra by Dr. Pramod Kumar where their injuries were reported in the injury report. The Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet under Section 308/394/342 r.w. Section 34 IPC.
4. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court which conducted the trial. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that no offence under sections 394/342/308 IPC was proved and they were accordingly acquitted of the same. However the two injured had fully established that the accused had caused simple injuries to them and accordingly convicted the three accused under Section 323 IPC. The Trial Court heard on the sentence and recorded that the accused were not having criminal antecedents, they belong to a respectable family, the incident took place on account of sudden provocation because of financial transaction and only simple injuries had been caused as such sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment and after recording the same reasons released them on probation for a period of one year provided they maintained their good behaviour and conduct.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought to argue that the order of the Court below is against weight of evidence. Once the prosecution case was found to be false as no offence under sections 394, 342 and 308 IPC was found to be established, the appellants ought to have been acquitted only on the ground that the prosecution case was false.
6. I have perused the judgment and also the material on record and I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The two injured persons had been examined soon after the injuries had been caused. Both of them have deposed in the trial and had fully supported the prosecution version. The medical officer who had examined the injured had also been examined as PW3 and no material contradiction was noted in his statement. In the circumstances I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Trial Judge.
7. However on the sentence I find that the appellants admittedly had no criminal antecedents, they belonged to a respectable family and the incident had taken place on account of certain provocation arising out of a financial transaction. It would also be relevant to note that no material has been brought on record to show that the accused-appellants violated the terms of the release on probation by the Trial Judge. Further as the incident had taken place in the year 1977, after a lapse of 35 years there will be no justification for the appellants to serve out the remaining sentence. In such facts and circumstances it would be appropriate to reduce the period of sentence to the period already undergone.
8. Accordingly the order of the Trial Judge dated 09.09.1982 is modified as above. The appeal stands partly allowed as above.
Appeal partly allowed
