HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 4655 of 2019
Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- M.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Revision is being disposed of finally with the consent of parties present.
2. This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned judgement and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2015 dismissing the appeal, arising out of judgement and order dated 26.05.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 1586 of 2008, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, by which, accused-revisionist has been convicted under Section 354 IPC to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this revision is that on 06.09.2007 at about 05:30 P.M. victim/opposite party no.2 went in the field to take fodder. Accused-revisionist came there and hit his hand on her breast; threatened to kill her if it is disclosed. On raising alarm her sister came there then revisionist fled away from spot.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that although he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. it is further submitted that he does not want to press the revision on merit but he prayed that sentence awarded by the Courts below may be reduced to the period already undergone. He further prayed that after a lapse of so long time, sending the accused-revisionist back to Jail would not serve the useful purpose.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist by stating that under the circumstances in which occurrence took place, sentence awarded by the courts below appears fit and proper.
6. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire evidence available on record. I find that after a proper scrutiny of evidence trial court as well as appellate court found the accused guilty under Sections 354 I.P.C. and I do not find any good ground to interfere the conviction, therefore, conviction of revisionist under Sections 354 IPC is confirmed.
7. In so far as sentence of revisionist is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that proceeding before the court below was commenced in 2007 and there is nothing on record to show that accused-revisionist has misused the liberty of bail.
9. After lapse of long time, I do not think it proper to send the accused-revisionist in jail again. I am of the view that if the sentences of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone with fine, it would meet the ends of justice.
10. It is ordered that the accused-revisionist is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period already under gone and to fine of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the Trial Court before his release. On depsition of fine, Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to victim in accordance with law.
11. Let the order be communicated to the Trial Court concerned through District Judge for necessary action and compliance.
12. The revision is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 12.12.2019