HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 27 of 2009
Revisionist :- Ram Chela
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Srivastava,Ajai Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the lower court record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/Section401 CrPC has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, District Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2006.
3. The said criminal appeal was preferred by the revisionist under Section 374 CrPC against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2006 passed by the trial Court whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced under Section 377 IPC for seven years rigorous imprison with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and, in the event of non-payment of fine, one years further imprisonment.
4. The learned trial Court, after considering the statement of the victim, who was ten years old child, and eye-witness (PW-2), found the offence having been committed by the revisionist and, thus, had convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as mentioned above. The learned appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and, has come to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 05.11.2008. The appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, has also taken note of criminal history of the revisionist in which he was convicted and sentencedfor the same nature of offence for five years rigorous imprisonment.
5. The victim in his statement has specifically named the accused and the manner in which the crime was committed. Even the PW-2, who witnessed the incident and, on his arrival the revisionist ran away, has categorically supported the incident and this is second offence of the similar nature being committed by the revisionist.
6. Considering above aspects, there is no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionist vide impugned judgment and order. Hence, this revision is dismissed being without merit and substance. However, considering the incident happened in the year 1989, the sentence of seven years is reduced to five years. The revisionist is directed to surrender before the trial Court.
7. Let a copy of this order, along with lower court record, be transmitted to the concerned trial Court immediately.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.]
Order Date :- 22.10.2019