PARAMHANS RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T. P. Garg, J. Heard Sri B. S. Rathore, holding the brief of Sri K. D. Giri, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants has not assailed the convic tion of the applicants on merits. He has only prayed for reduction in sentence on the ground that it is almost 17 years have lapsed the applicants have been undergoing the ordeal of a long trial and suffered a lot during this period. Further that they also remained in jail for some time after their appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the applicants, the conviction of the applicants is maintained. Even otherwise, the conviction of the ap plicants is based upon a sound appreciation of the entire evidence on record and is fully justified. Both the courts below have scrutinised the entire evidence on record carefully and have recorded their conviction which in my opinion, is fully justified. The defence version that it is a false case has been rightly disbelieved by the both the courts below. The conviction of the ap plicants is thus maintained even on merits.

(2.) AS regard the sentence, suffice will it be to say that occurrence took place about 17 years ago, admittedly the applicants must have suffered acute mental agony and pain besides hardship during all this period of 17 years. They also remained in jail for abbut one week each. In these circumstances, the ends of justice will be amply met if the period of substantive sentence is reduced to that already undergone so far as their sen tence under Section 452,i. P. C. is concerned. The sentence of fine under Sections 323/504 452, I. P. C. and that default of payment of fine is however, maintained. The applicants are given three months time to deposit the fine in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur, failing which their arrest warrants be issued and they be sent to jail to serve the sentence in default of pay ment of fine.