Back
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Chhabi Nath – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.-Heard Sri K.N. Pandey, and Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the convicted accused-revisionist against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dated 28.8.1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 884 of 1992 - State v. Chhabi Nath and others, by which the accused-revisionist was convicted under Section 326 I.P.C and was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment without awarding any amount of fine and also against the judgment and order passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-IX, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1992-Chhabi Nath v. State of U.P., by which the learned A.S.J. has affirmed the conviction of the convicted revisionist but reduced the sentence from 3 years to 1½ years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine with default stipulation to undergo three months additional incarceration in case of non deposition of fine.
3. In revision the convict-revisionist has taken ground that the lower Court and the lower appellate Court have not considered the statements
Teeth are not considered deadly weapons under Section 326 IPC, and injuries caused by biting may fall under Section 325 IPC for grievous hurt.
Rights of victim and Society at large must be kept in mind – prolonged trial is no ground to reduce sentence to meager sentence.
When an accused is convicted for a higher offense, they should not be convicted for a lesser included offense arising from the same incident.
Point of Law : Section 320 IPC defines what grievous hurt is. The injury which is “lacerated cut injury” has been held to be a grievous in nature.
The court held that the conviction under Section 326 of IPC based on legally inadmissible evidence was a gross illegality.
Probation of Offenders Act can be invoked for less serious offenses after long delays in sentencing.
The limitations of the court's jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C and the principles of reappreciating evidence.
Sentencing in criminal cases must consider the nature of the offense, the offender's background, and the relationship between the parties involved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
