RATI RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Balraj Trikha, learned Counsel for the applicants, at sufficient length. I wish, I could have been able to persuade myself to accept the arguments put with extreme vehemence and sincerity, but for the reasons stated hereinafter, the petition has to be dismissed.

(2.) This petition under section 482, Cr. P.C. by Ratiram and others v. State of U.P. has been filed on the following facts. In a trial under section 302/149 and allied sections, the applicants were sentenced to life imprisonment. They came up in appeal to this Court, when it was directed as under:In the result the appeal is partly allowed, conviction and sentence of life imprisonment to each of the appellants under section 302/149 IPC. are altered to that under section 325/149 IPC., and to a sentence .)f 5 years R.I. each, rest of their conviction and sentences are (as under section 147/323/149, IPC. imposed by the Trial Court are maintained. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out their sentences as modified by this Court, according to law. (quoted from Paper book page 7) The other relevant fact which has been stated in Paragraph 11 internal page 17 of the paper book, is that the accused/petitioners challenged the order of the High Court, in the Honble Supreme Court by filing a special Leave Petition, which was refused on 15-12-1987. A further averments has been made, which may be quoted: The Honble Court made an observation while dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the. Accused petitioners to make a prayer for release on probation to the High Court concerned, according to law.

(3.) On seeing this averment, I requested Sri Trikha, to produce a copy of the judgment the Honble Supreme Court. A photo-stat copy of the judgment has been passed on to this Court, which will form part of the record. The order of the Honble Sureme Court reads as under, he special leave petition is dismissed. In the order, therefore, there is no such observation of the Supreme Court as has been quoted in para 11.