PREMPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 23-7-1986 passed by Sri R. C. Agarwal, then Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1985, Prem Pal & Anr. v. State.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that on 11-5-1983 at 10 a. m. Smt. Margsri lodged a report against the accused Prem Pal and his mother Smt. Javitri Devi under Section 323 IPC with these allegations that on the aforesaid date at about 8 a. m. , the above named accused persons had beaten her and she had received injuries in the incident and that the incident was witnessed by Sri Doji and Jai Singh. On the basis of this F. I. R. a non-cognizable case under Section 323 IPC was registered at the police station. However, after X-ray, it was found that there was fracture of lower end of radius and styalid process of ulna Rt side and so the offence under Section 325 IPC was also added in the case and the police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against Prem Pal and his mother Javitri Devi. Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. THE trial Court framed charges under Sections 323 and 325 IPC against the accused persons. Learned Magistrate, after hearing of the case, came to the conclusion that both the charges were proved against the accused persons. He, therefore, convicted both of them under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to three months' RI and to a fine of Rs. 100/-each. THEy were also convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to RI of six months and to a fine of Rs. 200 each. Aggrieved with that judgment and order both accused persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1985. THE appeal was heard and decided by Mr. R. C. Agarwal, then Sessions Judge, Etah. He partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against Smt. Javitri Devi and acquitted her. As regards, the co-accused Prem Pal he set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC but since it was found that the charge under Section 325 was sufficiently proved against him, he maintained conviction of Prem Pal under Section 325 IPC and the sentences awarded to him. Aggrieved with that judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge this revision was filed.

(3.) KEEPING in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, I accede to his request and hold that, taking into consideration that the period of one and half month has already been spent by him in jail, he should, now, not be sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of imprisonment, but he shall have to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- (rupees twenty five hundred only) under Section 325 IPC. The revision, in this way, deserves to be allowed to this extent only.