Judgment:
Criminal Revision No.1250/2012 03.02.2014 Shri R.P.Prajapati, Advocate for the applicant.
None for the respondent No.1 though served.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2-State.
Heard on admission.
Vide judgment dated 24.1.2011 the learned JMFC Rehli in Criminal Case No.241/2008 convicted the respondent No.1 for the offence under Sections 294, 325 of IPC and sentenced with fine of Rs.500/- and one year's SI with fine of Rs.500/-.
In Criminal Appeal No.73/2011 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli vide judgment dated 11.5.2012 acquitted the respondent No.1 from the charge of offence under Section 294 of IPC, but maintained the conviction for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, but sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody with fine of Rs.3,000/-.
Out of that fine, a sum of Rs.2000/- was granted to the applicant.
Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments specially the judgment of the Appellate Court, the applicant has preferred the present revision.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence and situation available before the appellate Court, it appears that the applicant and the respondent No.1 are real brotheRs.Their father was examined as an eye-witness but he turned hostile.
Some of the witnesses have accepted that a criminal trial was prosecuted against the applicant and the respondent No.1 filed compromise in favour of the applicant, and therefore compromise took place and therefore the applicant was acquitted due to compromise.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the parties are real brothers and the respondent No.1 has faced the trial and appeal for a pretty long time, therefore the sentence was reduced to the period for which the respondent No.1 remained in the custody by enhancement of fine upto a sum of Rs.3000/-.
The applicant has grievance against the reduction of the sentence, however it would be apparent that the respondent No.1 was the fiRs.offender, and therefore it was not necessary for the trial Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment against the respondent No.1.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned the grounds for reduction of the sentence.
A criminal revision against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge can be reversed by this Court if there is any illegality or perversity committed by the learned court below.
In the present matter, no illegality or perversity is visible in the sentence reduced to the period for which the respondent No.1 remained in the custody and after considering the fiRs.offence and harassment incurred to him in appearing before the trial Court as well as appellate Court, there is no illegality visible in the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason for any interference in the judgment of the learned appellate Court.
Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant has no force, hence it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
A copy of this order be sent to both the courts below along with their records for information.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari