HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 421 of 2013
Revisionist :- Sunita
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anoop Srivastava-Ii
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Arun Kumar Singh Parihar
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2012 whereby the Appellate Court while affirming the conviction of the accused as ordered by the learned trial Court in its order dated 16.02.2012 has given the benefit of first offender under Section 360 Cr.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Probation of First Offender Act, 1958 to the accused.
2. The revisionist who is the wife of respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the direction issued by the learned Magistrate an FIR under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC was registered against respondent No.2 and six other persons who are the family members.
3. After investigating the offence final report was filed by the investigating officer. Against the filing of the final report, the revisionist filed a protest petition. Learned Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint case and after examining the prosecutrix and witnesses summoned the accused under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC, 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act.
4. The Trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties convicted only accused, Ram Sanehi under Sections 498A IPC and 4 of the SectionDowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him for one year with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498A IPC and one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted all other accused.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, respondent No.2 filed Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge/ Court No.3, Unnao. The Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2013 while affirming the conviction, has given benefit of first offender as mentioned above.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that within two years of marriage the revisionist was thrown out from the house. She was treated with cruelty for dowry demand. Therefore, looking at the gravity of offence which has grave social impact, the benefit of first offender should not have been granted to the accused.
7. I have considered the arguments carefully.
8. Respondent No.2 was convicted and sentenced for one year with fine of Rs.500/- He is not a criminal in the sense that the offence is a domestic offence and, it is the discretion of the court to grant benefit of the first offender looking at the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellate Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Probation of First Offender Act, 1958. I do not find any impropriety in the exercise of discretion by the appellate Court.
9. Thus, this revision is without merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019