HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
C.A.Rahim
RAM GOPAL
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 28 February 1997
Crl. Revn. No. 1629 of 1984,
Revision - Criminal Appeal - The court modified the conviction and sentence, imposing a fine instead of substantive imprisonment due to changed social conditions and family position of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The defense argued for leniency due to changed social conditions and family position of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the revision in part, affirming the convictions but modifying the sentences to impose a fine instead of substantive imprisonment.
Issues: The main issue was the appropriate punishment considering the changed circumstances of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the changed social conditions and family position of the accused, and decided to impose a fine instead of substantive imprisonment.
Final Decision: The revision was partly allowed, affirming the convictions but modifying the sentences to impose a fine. The bail bonds of the applicants were discharged, and they were not required to surrender in court.
Heard learned coun sel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A. Sri AK. Singh Yadav, appearing for the State.
2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad dated 7-8-1984 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1984. By that judgment he modified the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate and convicted the appellants under Section 149/323 I. P. C. in place of Section 323,i. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one month and dismissed the appeal in respect of other sections.
3. The learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad by his judgment dated 20-2-1984 in Criminal Case No. 525 of 1983 convicted and sentenced all the appel lants under Sections 147 and 323 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and one month respectively. Ram Gopal was also convicted under Section 148/354 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and 3 months respectively.
4. Sri Murlidhar appearing for the ap plicants has submitted that since 12 years have passed in the meantime the social con dition and family position of the applicants have been changed, it would be futile to send the accused persons in jail once again. He has submitted that lenient punishment of fine be imposed in lieu of the substantive sentence.
5. Having considered the fact that in all the sections fine has been provided in the alternative and in view of the submission that the accused applicants have suffered imprisonment for about a week, I feel that sentence of fine to the extent of Rs. 500 each for all the appellants would meet the ends of justice.
6. The revision is, therefore, allowed in part. Convictions are affirmed but the sen tences are modified to the extent that each of them shall pay Rs. 500 in all for the offence committed by them. The substan tive sentence imposed in connection with the above noted sections by the learned lower courts are hereby set aside. So bail bonds of all the applicants are discharged. They are not required to surrender in the court. Fine shall be paid within a period of two months from this date, in default to suffer S. I. for one month.
7. With the above observations and modifications, the revision is disposed of.
Revision partly allowed.
.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.