Swami Nath And Another Revisionist v. State Of U.P Opp. Parties., Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The criminal revision involves revisionists Swami Nath and Ram Nath challenging the judgment and order dated 15.7.1986 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria. The appeal partly allowed the acquittal of co-accused Harish Chandra and Yashwant for charges under sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, and 504 I.P.C. The revisionist Swami Nath was acquitted of charges under sections 323/34 I.P.C and the compensation order of Rs. 1000/- to the injured first informant was set aside. However, the convictions and sentences of Swami Nath and Ram Nath under various sections including 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, and 504 I.P.C were affirmed with sentences of simple imprisonment and fines, all running concurrently.

The incident occurred on 17.10.1983 when the first informant Kanhaiya Lal and his father Ram Nagina were attacked by the revisionists and co-accused during a quarrel over the execution of a sale deed. Injuries were inflicted by lathi and pharsa blows on several individuals including the injured parties and the revisionists themselves. Charges were framed accordingly, and prosecution witnesses were examined. The revisionists did not call any witnesses in their defense. The trial court convicted the revisionists and co-accused; the appellate court partially allowed the appeal, acquitting some accused and modifying orders related to compensation.

Arguments of the Parties

Revisionists' Arguments

The revisionists have already undergone 15 days in jail.

The occurrence was a sudden quarrel and not premeditated.

Except one injury, all injuries were simple in nature.

The revisionists themselves received injuries, which were medically proved but unexplained.

The prosecution did not come with a clean hand as evidenced by the acquittal of co-accused Harish Chandra and Yashwant.

More than 22 years have passed since the incident, and bitterness between the parties should be considered in modifying the sentence.

Court's View on Arguments

The court agreed that both parties received injuries and the incident was sudden.

The court noted the long passage of time and the acquittal of co-accused as relevant to modifying the sentence.

The court did not agree with the appellate court's setting aside of the compensation order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature and gravity of the offence, noting that the injuries were largely simple and that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel. It observed that the revisionists themselves suffered injuries that were medically established but unexplained. Considering the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence and the long period elapsed since the incident (over 22 years), the court reasoned that enforcing imprisonment would revive bitterness between the parties. Therefore, it found it just to modify the sentence by converting the unserved imprisonment period into fines while upholding the convictions. The court also disagreed with the appellate court’s decision to set aside the compensation awarded to the injured parties, thereby reinstating that order. The court ordered the revisionists to deposit specified fines within four months, failing which the original sentences would be enforced. The bail bonds of the revisionists were cancelled and sureties discharged.

Holding and Implications

The revision is partly allowed.

The convictions of revisionists Swami Nath and Ram Nath under the specified sections of the Indian Penal Code are upheld. However, their sentences are modified by converting the remaining unserved imprisonment into fines payable within four months. Failure to pay the fines will result in serving the original sentences as awarded by the appellate court. The compensation order to the injured parties is reinstated. The revisionists’ bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. This decision directly affects the parties by modifying the sentence and maintaining compensation but does not establish any new legal precedent.

Swami Nath And Another Revisionist v. State Of U.P Opp. Parties.

Ravindra Singh, J.:— The present criminal revision is preferred by the revisionists Swami Nath and Ram Nath against the judgment and order dated 15.7.1986, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, whereby the appeal was partly allowed and the co-accused Harish Chandra and Yashwant were acquitted for the charges under sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C the revisionist Swami Nath has also been acquitted for the charges under sections 323/34 I.P.C and the order of awarding compensation of Rs. 1000/- to the injured 4 first informant was also set aside but affirmed the conviction and sentence of revisionist Swami Nath under section 325/34 I.P.C for three months' Simple Imprisonment under section 324 I.P.C for six months' Simple Imprisonment and under section 504 I.P.C for three months' Simple Imprisonment and confirmed the conviction and sentence of revisionist Ram Nath under sections 323/34 I.P.C for three months' Simple Imprisonment under section 324/34 I.P.C for six months. Simple Imprisonment, under section 325 I.P.C for one year's Simple Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and under section 504 I.P.C only three months' Simple Imprisonment and in default of the payment of above mentioned fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment of three months' Simple Imprisonment. It was ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Sri P.K Kashyap, learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A

3. Learned Counsel for the revisionists does not want to press this revision on its merit but it is being pressed on the quantum of sentence only.

4. To consider the quantum of sentence, it is necessary to consider the nature 5 and gravity of the offence and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

5. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 17.10.1983 at about 6.00 A.M, the first informant Kanhaiya Lal rose from his not and was ready to go to attend the tall of nature. Meanwhile he was surrounded by the revisionists and two other co-accused persons who were armed with Lathi and Pharsa, his fattier Ram Nagina was also surrounded at the door and they started quarreling over the execution of a sale deed in respect of a field When the father of the first informant tried to intervene the accused persons caused injuries by using Lathi blows on the person of Kanhaiya Lal, then Lakhraj, Hans Raj and Ram Kishun came at the place of the occurrence and tried to rescue the injured, the revisionists Swami Nath used Pharsa blow on Lakhraj. The remaining accused persons caused injuries by using Lathi blows, consequently Hansraj and Kanhaiya Lal received injuries. The father of Kanhaiya Lal also received some simple injuries. Thereafter the F.I.R was lodged on 17.10.1083 at 7.30 A.M

6. The charges under sections 323/34, 324, 325 and 506 I.P.C were framed against revisionist Swami Nath and charges under sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C were framed against the revisionist Ram Nath and co-accused Harish Chandra and Yashwant.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W 1 Kanhaiya Lal, P.W 2 Lakhraj. P.W 3 Hansraj, P.W 4 Dr. N.K Jaiswal, P.W 6 Dr. Subhash Prasad. The statements of the revisionists and other co-accused persons were recorded under section 313 I.P.C but no witness was examined by them in the defence.

8. After considering the evidence present on the record, the learned Magistrate convicted the revisionists Swami Nath under sections 323/34 I.P.C, 324, 504 and 325/34 I.P.C and convicted the revisionist Ram Nath under sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C And convicted co-accused Harish Chandra and Yashwant under sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34 I.P.C and 504 I.P.C on 31.1.1985 Against that order, all the accused persons filed the Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1985, the appeal was allowed in part and dismissed in part also. Consequently the co-accused Harish Chandra and Yashwant have been acquitted and the revisionist Swami Nath has also been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 325/34 I.P.C, the remaining order of the conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Appellate Court but the Appellate Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court in respect of the payment of Rs. 1000/- as compensation to the first informant and other injured witnesses.

9. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that in the present case the revisionists have remained in jail for 15 days. The alleged occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel, it was not pre intended, except the injury No. 2 of the injured Lakhraj all injuries were simple in nature and in the same incident the revisionists Swami Nath and Ram Nath have also received injuries, the same were proved. The injuries of Swami Nath was X-rayed by P.W 5 Dr. N.K Jaiswal, the Radiologist. According to the statement of Dr. N.K Jaiswal, there was a fracture of the bone of the right hand. The injuries of revisionists Ram Nath and Swami Nath were examined by P.W 6 Dr. Subhash Chandra, who has examined the injured of prosecution side also. He has proved did injury report of the revisionists Ram Nath and Swami Nath. The injuries of revisionists have not been explained. The prosecution has not come with a clean hand and on the same set of the evidence the co-accused Harish Chandra and Yashwant have been acquitted by the Appellate Court. The alleged occurrence has taken place on 15.10.1983 Now more than 22 years have been passed from the date of the alleged occurrence. After such a long period the circumstances would have been changed and the bitterness of the parties would have come to an end because both the parties have received injuries, therefore it will not be proper to send the revisionists to jail again therefore the sentence may be modified.

10. I agree with the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the revisionists because in the present case both the parties have received injuries. The injuries of the revisionists have not been explained and the alleged occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel. A period of more than 23 years have been passed, the bitterness would have come to an end and on the same set of the evidence, the co-accused Harish Chandra and Yashwant have been acquitted. Therefore, it will not be proper to send the revisionists to jail again otherwise it will again revive the bitterness between the parties. To meet the ends of justice, it will be proper to modify the sentence by converting the remaining period of unserved sentence into fine but I do not agree with the order of the Appellate Court by which the order of the compensation awarded to the first informant and other injured witnesses was set aside.

11. In view of the above discussions, the order of the conviction in respect of the revisionist Swami Nath is upheld under sections 323/34, 324 and 504 I.P.C And the order of the conviction against revisionist Ram Nath is upheld under sections 323/34, 324/34, 325 and 504 I.P.C but their sentence is modified to the extent that the revisionist Swami Nath is sentenced under section 323/34 I.P.C for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the remaining period of unserved sentence, under section 324 I.P.C for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the period of unserved sentence and under section 504 I.P.C for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the remaining period of unserved sentence. Thus the revisionists Swami Nath shall deposit Rs. 2000/- in the Trial Court within a period of four months from today. The revisionist Ram Nath is sentenced under section 323/34 I.P.C For the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the period of unserved sentence, under section 324/34 I.P.C for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the period of unserved sentence, under section 325 I.P.C for the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the period of unserved sentence, in addition to fine of Rs. 500/- as already awarded by the Trial Court, under section 504 I.P.C for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the remaining period of unserved sentence. Thus the revisionist Ram Nath shall deposit toted Rs. 3500/- in the trial Court within a period of four months from today. In default of the payment of, aforesaid fine, each revisionist will have to serve the sentence as awarded by the Appellate Court. In case file aforesaid fine, is deposited, Rs. 500/- each will be given to all the injured persons as compensation. The revisionists are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled, the sureties are discharged.

12. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed.

Criminal Revision No. 1161 of 1986

Swami Nath And Another Revisionist v. State Of U.P Opp. Parties.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Revisionists' Arguments

Court's View on Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Swami Nath And Another Revisionist v. State Of U.P Opp. Parties.

Comments