# Sankatha & Ors. Revisionists (In Jail) v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 96
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1468 of 1990
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sankatha-ors-revisionists-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-49559
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 43 & 360 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 34,
307 & 324 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 114-G - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections
3 & 25 - UP Probation of Offenders
Act,1938 - Section - 4 - Criminal Revision -
Revisionists
assailed
their
conviction
and
sentence - offences u/s 147, 148, 307 of IPC
and u/s 25 of the Arms Act - dispute traced
back to a confrontation involving irrigation rights
- FIR - chargesheet - trial - conviction and
sentenced - by Assistant Sessions Judge - on
appeal,
Sessions
Judge
re-evaluated
and
modified conviction - reducing charges to
Section 324/149 IPC - Criminal Revision - the
revisionists contended that the judgments were
based on biased evidence, lacked independent
witnesses, and ignored inconsistencies like nonrecovery of weapons and questionable medical
interpretation - Evaluation of Evidences - Court
observed no material error, perversity, or
procedural lapse in findings of lower courts -
court affirmed the finding of unlawful assembly
and commission of assault - firearm injury held
genuine, and prosecution's explanation for
evidentiary
gaps
deemed
adequate
-
considering the absence of prior criminal history
and the age of the case, the Court granted them
the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the
UP Probation of Offenders Act, - and ordered
their release on probation for two years, subject
to maintaining peace and good conduct, and
required them to submit two sureties of ₹10,000
each along with a personal bond and an
undertaking to the District Probation Officer,
within one month - Any breach of these
conditions would result in the revival of the
original sentence. (Para - 23, 24, 28, 29, 30,
34)

Revision Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 12 ILRA 96
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1468 of 1990

Sankatha & Ors. ...Revisionists (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri P.M.N. Singh, Sri Anil Kumar Verma, Sri
Deena Nath, Sri Anil Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 43 & 360 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 34,
307 & 324 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 114-G - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections
3 & 25 - UP Probation of Offenders
Act,1938 - Section - 4 - Criminal Revision -
Revisionists
assailed
their
conviction
and
sentence - offences u/s 147, 148, 307 of IPC
and u/s 25 of the Arms Act - dispute traced
back to a confrontation involving irrigation rights
- FIR - chargesheet - trial - conviction and
sentenced - by Assistant Sessions Judge - on
appeal,
Sessions
Judge
re-evaluated
and
modified conviction - reducing charges to
Section 324/149 IPC - Criminal Revision - the
revisionists contended that the judgments were
based on biased evidence, lacked independent
witnesses, and ignored inconsistencies like nonrecovery of weapons and questionable medical
interpretation - Evaluation of Evidences - Court
observed no material error, perversity, or
procedural lapse in findings of lower courts -
court affirmed the finding of unlawful assembly
and commission of assault - firearm injury held
genuine, and prosecution's explanation for
evidentiary
gaps
deemed
adequate
-
considering the absence of prior criminal history
and the age of the case, the Court granted them
the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the
UP Probation of Offenders Act, - and ordered
their release on probation for two years, subject
to maintaining peace and good conduct, and
required them to submit two sureties of ₹10,000
each along with a personal bond and an
undertaking to the District Probation Officer,
within one month - Any breach of these
conditions would result in the revival of the
original sentence. (Para - 23, 24, 28, 29, 30,
34)

Revision Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Hashim Vs St. of U.P & ors., AIR 2017
SC 660,

2. Sitaram Paswan & anr.Vs St. of Bihar, AIR
2005 SC 3534,

3. St. of Haryana Vs Krishn, AIR 2017 SC 3125,

4. Dharni Dhar Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759;

5. Dalbir Kaur Vs St. of Pun. (1976) 4 SCC 158,

6. Mukesh Vs St. for NCT of Delhi & ors., AIR
2017 SC 2161 (three Judge Bench),

7. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs St. of Mah.,
(2016) 10 SCC 537,

8. Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2016) 4
SCC 357.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, assisted
by Sri Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel
for the revisionists, Sri Roshan Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State at length and
perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentencing passed by
Assistant Sessions Judge, 5th Varanasi, in
12 All. Sankatha &Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
97
S.T. No. 183 of 1989 (State Vs. Sankata
and four others) under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms
Act and Crl. Appeal No. 27 of 1990
(Sankatha and Four Others Vs. State) dated
17th August, 1990 by the Sessions Judge,
Varanasi.

3. The learned A.S.J. convicted
accused Sankatha u/s 147, 148, 307 I.P.C.
and Section 25 of the Arms Act and
awarded one month's simple imprisonment
u/s 147 I.P.C. three months simple
imprisonment u/s 148 I.P.C. and 7 years
rigorous u/s 307 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 500/-
. He also sentenced the accused Sankatha
for five months of rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 25 of the Arms
Act with default stipulation of three months
simple imprisonment. The learned A.S.J.
convicted the rest of the accused persons
u/s 147, 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
and convicted accused Shobha, Pandhari,
Subhash and Chhote Lal for one month's
simple imprisonment under Section 147
I.P.C. and five years rigorous imprisonment
to each of the accused under Section 307
read with Section 149 I.P.C. and fine of Rs.
200/- to each of the accused with default
stipulation
of
one
month's
simple
imprisonment.

4. The learned A.S.J. allowed the
appeal partly and in place of Section 307
I.P.C. convicted the accused Sankatha u/s
324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and
sentenced
him
two
years
rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- with
one month's additional imprisonment in
case of non deposition of the fine but
acquitted him under Section 147 I.P.C. and
maintained the conviction and sentencing
u/s 148 I.P.C. and awarded three months
simple
imprisonment,
maintained
the
conviction under Section 25 Arms Act and
awarded
five
months
rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and
in case of default, one month's simple
imprisonment.

5. Co-accused Shobha, Pandhari,
Chhotelal and Subhash were convicted u/s
147, 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. with
a
sentence
of
one
month's
simple
imprisonment u/s 147 I.P.C. and two years
rigorous imprisonment u/s 324 read with
Section 149 I.P.C. together with a fine of
Rs. 200/ and in case of default of payment,
one month's simple imprisonment.

6. The revisionists have taken the
grounds that the judgment and order of
both the Courts below are against the
weight of the evidence on record. They
have failed to appreciate the evidence. Both
the Courts have erred in relying upon the
tented, interested, inimical, contrary and
highly unreliable prosecution evidence and
no conviction can be sustained on such
evidence. The impugned judgments are
perverse and based on conjectures and
surmises. No independent witness has been
produced by the prosecution while several
are named in the F.I.R. and the chargesheet. No explanation for their nonexamination has been offered, therefore, u/s
114 G of the Indian Evidence Act, an
adverse presumption will have to be drawn.

7. The witness Laldhari, cousin of the
informant/injured is an accused against the
revisionist Sankatha which was pending in
the Court of J.M. II Varanasi. No offence
has been proved against any of the accusedrevisionists.
Four
of
the
accusedrevisionists were quite empty-handed and
no overt role has been attributed to them.
The only role is assigned to Sankatha
because earlier to this incident, an F.I.R.
was lodged by Sankatha against Lal Dhari
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and others about beating. No intention to
kill the injured is proved against any of the
accused-revisionist in view of the superficial
injury of the informant on his foot alone and
the possibility of manufacturing and self
suffered injury can not be ruled out. No
proper explanation has been offered by the
prosecution to the numerous injuries suffered
by the four accused persons in the incident.
The prosecution could not prove the motive
and recovery of the firearm and cartridges
from the possession of accused, Sankatha.
The Courts below have overlooked the fact
that there was no source of light on the spot.
The learned Courts have wrongly disbelieved
the reliable defence version and have
wrongly concluded that the place of
occurrence is the house of the informant.
Even the I.O. has not fixed the correct place
of occurrence. The house of accused Sobha,
much closer than the house of the informant
has not been shown by the I.O. The place of
occurrence is also doubtful, as no blood was
found there.

8. The Courts below has not applied the
principles of law correctly and have wholly
ignored the contradiction with regard to the
use of hockey and the deposit of katta in
police station. The alleged Katta was not sent
to the ballestic expert for examination. The
witness Laldhari, has accepted the truth that
the complainant had fired, but later on he
corrected himself and twisted and falsely
implicated the accused because of enmity.
Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the
fact that in case of country made pistols and
cartridges, the standard distance for causing
injury and charring is not applicable. The
doctor has found blackening near the wound
by mistake or error. The injury may not be a
katta/gun shot injury.

9. The revisionists are young and
have not previously been convicted. Both
the Courts below have failed to consider
the provision of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and
the revisionists were not given the benefits
of First Offenders Act for which they are
entitled. Therefore, the revision be allowed
and the judgment and order of both the
Courts below be set aside.

10. In brief, facts of the case are that
an altercation took place on 22.4.1987
regarding irrigation from the Government
tubewell water between the complainant
Suresh Prasad of village Machhli Gav , P.S.
Phoolpur, Varanasi, due to this enmity
Shobhnath, and other co-accused persons
reached on the door of the informant at
9:00 P.M. On 22.4.1987, started abusing
him and his family members. He also
threatened to give a lesson to the
complainant. Sankatha then fired from his
pistol which caused firearm injury to the
complainant's leg and he fell down. On his
alarm when Lal Dhari, Vikrama, Baba, Dev
Raj, Bhagwan Das and others came,
accused started running away, but except
Shobhnath, all were caught hold on the
spot. The accused Sankatha was found in
possession of one country made pistol, two
live cartridges and one empty cartridge. All
the accused persons were brought to the
police station and F.I.R. Ex. Ka-3 was
lodged. After investigation charge-sheet
was submitted. The case was committed to
the Court of Sessions. The accused persons
were charged under Sections 147, 148, 307
read with Section 149 I.P.C. The accused
Sankatha was also charged u/s 25 of the
Arms Act.

11.
Following
witnesses
were
examined by the prosecution:

i
P.W.1
Suresh
Prasad,
Informant
Ii
P.W.2
Dr. P.K.Srivastava
12 All. Sankatha &Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
99
Iii
P.W.3
Laldhari
Iv
P.W.4
Constable
Ashwani
Kumar
V
P.W.5,
S.I.
Ram
Siromani
Upadhayay

12. Defence witness :

D.W.1
Dr. P.K. Srivastava

13. Documentary Evidence by the
prosecution:

I

Ex. Ka-1

written
complaint

ii

Ex. Ka-2

Injury Report,

Iii

Ex. Ka-3

Chik F.I.R,

Iv

Ex. Ka-4

Carbon
Copy
G.D.

V

Ex.Ka-5

Site plan

Vi

Ex. Ka-6

Recovery
Memo

Vii

Ex.Ka-7

Prosecution
sanction u/s 25
Arms Act,

Viii

Ex. Ka-8

Charge-sheet
under Sections
147, 148, 149
and 307 I.P.C.

Ix

Ex. Ka-9

Charge-sheet
u/s 25 Arms
Act.

14. Material Exhibits:

I

Ex. Ka-1 to Ex.
Ka-4

Country-made
pistol 12 bore,
two
live
cartridges
and
one
empty
cartridge

Ii

Ex. Ka-5

Truss
of
the
above materials

15. Defence Evidence:

Ex. Kha-1 to Ex.
Kha -4

Injury
reports
of
Chhote Lal, Subhash,
Sankatha, Pandhari.

Findings

16. The learned counsel for the
revisionist has taken ground that though the
names of several independent witnesses are
mentioned in the F.I.R. and charge-sheet
but none of them has been examined. Only
Lal
Dhari,
the
cousin
of
the
informant/injured who is an accused in a
case of Sankatha which is pending in the
Court of J.M. II, Varanasi, has been
examined as P.W.3. In this regard, it is
submitted by the State that nowadays
independent witnesses do not come forward
to be a witness due to the fear of enmity.
Even in civil cases, hardly any independent
witness comes forward for deposition in
favour of the plaintiff or the defendant. He
further contended that an injured witness is
at high pedestal and his presence on the
spot can not be denied. The only duty of
the Court is to scrutinize his evidence with
care and caution. When an offence is
committed
at
the
house
of
the
injured/informant, he himself and his
cousin would be natural witness and their
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence can not be thrown away because
no independent witness has been examined.

(a) In Mukesh Vs. State for NCT
of Delhi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 2161
(three Judge Bench), Bhagwan Jagannath
Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016)
10 SCC 537, Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State
of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 and in so many
other cases, it has been held that if a
witness examined in the Court is otherwise
found reliable and trustworthy, the facts
ought to be proved by that witness need not
be further proved through other witnesses,
though there may be other witnesses
available who could have been examined
but were not examined. Non-examination
of material witness is not a mathematical
formula for discording the weight of the
testimony available on record. However,
natural, trustworthy and convincing it may
be---- the court can convict an accused on
the statement of a sole witness even if he is
relative
of
the
deceased
and
nonexamination of independent witness would
not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(b) In this case, P.W.1 is the
injured witness and P.W.3 is the eye
witness and the accused persons except one
accused were arrested on the spot by the
public.

(c) In Dharni Dhar Vs. State of
U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759; Dalbir Kaur Vs.
State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 it has
been
held
that
non-examination
of
independent
eye
witnesses
is
inconsequential if the witness was won
over or terrorised by the accused.

(d) In State of Haryana Vs.
Krishn, AIR 2017 SC 3125, Mukesh
(supra) and Bhagwan Jagannath (Supra),
it has been held that the deposition of an
injured should be relied upon unless there
are strong grounds for rejection of his
evidence
on
the
basis
of
major
contradictions and discrepancies for the
reason that his presence on the scene stands
established in the case and it is proved that
he suffered the injuries during the said
incident. In Bhagwan Jagannath (supra) it
has also been held that the public
prosecutor is not bound to examine all
witnesses.

(e) From the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.3, it has also been established that
the accused persons were arrested on the
spot by public after the incident and in the
course of their arrest u/s 43 of Cr.P.C.
Some injuries had occurred to them. For
these injuries present on the persons of
accused persons, the informant and his
family members or P.W.3 or other public
person were not prosecuted by the accused
persons. It also establishes the presence of
the accused on the date, time and place of
the occurrence and thus the prosecution
case is also proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, the plea that no independent
witness
has
been
examined
by
the
prosecution
is
immaterial
and
is
accordingly rejected.

17. The revisionist has taken the
ground that a criminal case on behalf of
revisionist Sankatha was pending against
the witness P.W.3, Lal Dhari, in the Court
of J.M.II Varanasi, therefore, the accusedrevisionists were falsely implicated in the
case. According to this Court a previous
enmity may be a reason to commit an
offence and also to implicate falsely in a
criminal case. In this case, the informant
P.W.1 has received a firearm injury which
cannot be said to be superficial or artificial
in nature and the same cannot be made by
bearing the pain or by taking the risk. This
is a case of direct evidence for which proof
of motive is immaterial. All the accused
persons and the witnesses are the resident
of the same village, they know and
12 All. Sankatha &Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
101
recognized each other. The witnesses have
proved the immediate motive against the
accused persons which occurred same day,
which was the cause of the commission of
the crime. Thus, the plea that the accused
persons were falsely implicated on account
of previous enmity with P.W.3 is rejected
as it has no force.

18. A plea has been taken by the
accused
revisionists
that
no
proper
explanation has been offered by the
prosecution to the injuries suffered by the
four accused persons in the incident. It has
already been concluded that in the course
of arrest some injuries had occurred to the
accused persons. The mob was furious as
accused Sankatha had fired at the informant
with a malafide intention, but it did not hit
the vital part of his person. Thus, the proper
and plausible explanation has already been
given by the prosecution with regard to the
injuries suffered by the accused persons,
therefore, the accused persons can not be
benefited on account of such injuries.

19. A plea has been taken by the
revisionists that there was no source of
light on the spot, therefore, there was no
occasion to recognize the accused persons.
According to this Court, the persons of
both the sides are the residents of same
village. They recognize them since their
birth, therefore, there was no problem in
their recognition. A resident of same
village may be recognised by the villagers
by gesture, voice, height, clothes etc.
Except one accused when all accused
persons were arrested from the spot at the
time of the commission of crime, the plea
that there was no source of light is of no
avail. However, in the evening, lanterns
and earthen lamps are commonly used by
the villagers, which has sufficient light to
identify any person. It is not a mid night
incident that some unknown miscreants
came and ran away after committing the
crime. On the basis of the above discussion,
the plea regarding lack of source of light, is
also rejected.

20. A plea has been taken by the
accused-revisionists that the place of
occurrence has not been fixed and the same
is not proved. According to this Court from
the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and from
the site plan and its related oral evidence, it
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the place of occurrence is the same
which has been mentioned in the F.I.R.
Mere not showing the house of the accused
Shobha is not fatal for the prosecution. The
accused-revisionists
have
also
not
suggested any other place of occurrence,
therefore, mere plea that the place of
occurrence has not been fixed and proved
by the prosecution is a mere plea which has
been taken only for the sake of argument.
Thus, this plea is also accordingly rejected.

21. A plea has been taken that no
blood was found on the spot. According to
this Court, it is not a case in which one or
two litre blood oozed and fell on the earth.
The place of occurrence was visited later
on and several persons had wandered there.
The alleged place of occurrence was not
restricted by any authority, hence if no
blood was found on the spot, the same is
not fatal for the prosecution.

22. A plea has been taken that country
made pistol was not sent to the FSL or to
the
armourer
for
its
examination.
According to this Court, when two live
cartridges, one empty cartridge and one
country made pistol in running condition
were found from the possession of accused
Sankatha and it was not questioned by the
accused persons, no such plea can be taken.
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
P.W.2 Dr. P.K Srivastava, had examined
the injured P.W.1, he had found three
stabbed wounds on the left ankle, he had
also found blackening with dried blood on
the first wound and oozing blood on second
and third injury. He opined that all the three
injuries were caused by fire arm but were
simple in nature. He also opined that even
all the three injuries may be caused by one
fire. Such injuries may occur when any fire
has been made from a close range within 35 feet. The learned counsel for the accused
revisionists
argued
that
the
standard
provided in the books cannot be applied in
a case where a country made pistol has
been used. It is true that if a fire has been
made from a country made pistol, the
standard provided in books such as Modi
Medical Jurisprudence and Parikh Medical
Jurisprudence shall not apply literally but
by and large there would not be much
difference and the oral evidence would
prevail. Thus, this plea is also rejected
accordingly.

23. Both the Courts have given
concurrent findings of the fact that the
accused persons attacked the house of the
informant and accused Sankatha fired at
Suresh Prasad due to previous dispute
occurred at 12:00 noon regarding irrigation
of field from Government Tubewell.
Except accused Shobhnath, rest were
arrested on the spot by the villagers
alongwith weapons, which were later on
handed over to the concerned police at the
police station. The contradiction regarding
the manner of arrest and providing the
materials recovered from the possession of
the accused persons are not material.

24. A plea has been taken that the
accused persons and the arm alleged to be
recovered from the possession of accused
Sankatha are not in consonance as per the
evidence of recovery memo and the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3.

25. As per Section 43 of the Cr.P.C.,
any private person may arrest an accused
who has committed a non-bailable and
cognizable offence in his presence.

26. For convenience Section 43 of the
Cr.P.C is noted herein below:

Any private person may arrest or
cause to be arrested any person who in his
presence commits a non-bailable and
cognizable offence, or any proclaimed
offender, and, without unnecessary delay,
shall make over or cause to be made over
any person so arrested to a police officer,
or, in the absence of a police officer.

27. From the above, it is concluded
that since a cognizable offence had been
caused by the accused persons, therefore
the informant P.W.1, P.W. 3 and the
villagers were entitled to arrest the accused
persons on the spot and to hand them over
to the concerned police station. Though in
this regard some variations have been
noticed but since the same are not material,
therefore, the same are not fatal for the
prosecution and the plea regarding this
aspect, is also rejected.

28. From the perusal of the injury
report, it comes out that all the accused
persons are responsible for forming an
unlawful assembly and committing crime
in furtherance of a common object out of
which one accused was armed with deadly
weapon, therefore, all the accused persons
would also be liable for the offence
committed by accused Sankatha. It does not
appear necessary to discuss the law relating
to Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code,
as it has already been discussed and
12 All. Sankatha &Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
103
concluded by both the Courts at District
level.

29. Though the fire arm injury had
been caused to the informant, P.W.1 by a
fire arm but the target was not the core of
the body and it injured the left ankle of the
injured, therefore, the learned Appellate
Court has rightly found it to be a case under
Section 324 I.P.C. It does not appear that
the intention of accused Sankatha or other
accused persons was to kill the informant
Suresh Kumar, but it appears that they
wanted to teach him a lesson and to
demoralise him forever. But so far as the
findings of the learned Appellate Court
regarding conviction of the accused persons
are concerned, it is not liable to be
interfered with.

30. So far as the sentencing is
concerned, since it is a case of 1987, more
than 36 years have passed and the case
remains under Section 148 and Section 324
read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section
3/25 Arms Act, there is no previous or post
criminal antecedent to the credit of the
accused persons, therefore, it would be
feasible and proper to release the accused
persons on probation for good conduct as
no useful purpose would be served by
sending them to jail to serve the rest of the
sentence.

31. Coming to the point of desirability
of extending the benefit of Probation Act to
the accused/revisionist in Sitaram Paswan
and another Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2005
SC 3534, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:-

"For exercising the power which
is discretionary, the Court has to consider
circumstances of the case, the nature of the
offence and the character of the offender.
While considering the nature of the offence,
the Court must take a realistic view of the
gravity of the offence, the impact which the
offence had on the victim. The benefit
available to the accused under Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act is subject to
the limitation embodied in the provisions
and the word "may" clearly indicates that
the discretion vests with the Court whether
to release the offender in exercise of the
powers under Section 3 or 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, having regard
to the nature of the offence and the
character of the offender and overall
circumstances of the case. The powers
under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act vest with the Court when any
person is found guilty of the offence
committed, not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. This power can be
exercised by the Courts while finding the
person guilty and if the Court thinks that
having regard to the circumstances of the
case, including the nature of the offence
and the character of the offender, benefit
should be extended to the accused, the
power can be exercised by the Court even
at the appellate or revisional stage and
also by this Court while hearing appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India."

32. In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of
U.P and others, AIR 2017 SC 660, Hon'ble
Supreme Court opined as under:-

"20. ...In Rattan Lal v. State of
Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444. Subba Rao, J.,
speaking for the majority, opined thus:-
"The Act is a milestone in the progress of
the modern liberal trend of reform in the
field of penology. It is the result of the
recognition of the doctrine that the object
of criminal law is more to reform the
individual offender than to punish him.
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes
offenders below 21 years of age and those
above that age, and offenders who are
guilty of having committed an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and those who are guilty of a lesser
offence. While in the case of offenders who
are above the age of 21 years absolute
discretion is given to the court to release
them after admonition or on probation of
good conduct, subject to the conditions laid
down in the appropriate provisions of the
Act, in the case of offenders below the age
of 21 years an injunction is issued to the
court not to sentence them to imprisonment
unless it is satisfied that having regard to
the circumstances of the case; including the
nature of the offence and the character of
the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with
them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."

33. As far as the conviction part is
concerned, this Court does not find any
illegality, perversity or infirmity in the
order passed by the courts below but
keeping in view the discussion made above,
the sentence inflicted on the accusedrevisionist requires modifications.

Order

34. The revision is partly allowed
with the following modifications:-

The
conviction
of
the
accusedrevisionists by courts at District level is
upheld.
The
sentence
of
accusedrevisionists is modified to the tune that they
are provided benefit of Section 4 of the UP
Probation of Offenders Act and are
released on probation on the condition that
they will keep peace and good conduct for
two years from today and shall file two
sureties to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each
along with their personal bond before the
district probation officer, Varanasi and also
an undertaking to the effect that they shall
maintain peace and good behaviour during
the period of two years from today. In case
of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the revisionists will be
subjected to undergo the sentence as
directed by the appellate court. The bonds
aforesaid will be filed by the revisionistsaccused within one month from today,
before the District Probation Officer,
Varanasi, U.P., under the intimation to the
concerned court.

35. A certified copy of the order be
also be sent to the court concerned and
District Probation Officer, Varanasi, U.P.,
for compliance.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 104
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1915 of 2020
With
Criminal Revision No. 1926 of 2020

Saleem Khan @ Saleem Master (Mama)
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164, 173, 173(3),
190(1)(a), 190(1)(b),200, 202 & 397 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 120-B,