SURESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State were heard.

(2.) THE instant criminal revision has been preferred challenging the conviction of the revisionist in Criminal Case No.5690 of 2008 (State v. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others), passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, whereby the present revisionist, who happens to be the husband of the victim was convicted for the offence under Section 498 -A/323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offence under Section 498 -A I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also with fine of Rs.1000/ -. For the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also with fine of Rs.500/ - and for the offence under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also with fine of Rs.1000/ -. In default of payment of amount of fine the revisionist was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Other four accused -persons who faced trial for the same offence were acquitted by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial Court the revisionist Suresh Kumar Yadav preferred criminal appeal no.17 of 2012 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Unnao, vide his judgment dated 15.02.2013, confirmed the judgment passed by Trial Court.

(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is in custody since 29.07.2013 and has already served more than six months of sentence in the instant case. Only point pressed into service in the instant revision is that keeping in view the allegations and fact that the revisionist has already undergone imprisonment for a period of six months, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the judgment of the learned Trial Court and also Appellate Court are well reasoned and the finding of conviction of the revisionist need not to be interfered with.