Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against judgement and order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2014, under Sections 332, 3453 I.P.C. (Anil and others Vs. State of U.P.) and against judgement and order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 3392 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil), arising out of Case Crime No. 165 of 2006, under Sections 332, 353 I.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut by which the revisionist-accused has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 332 I.P.C. to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to seven days simple imprisonment, under Section 353 I.P.C. to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to seven days simple imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The trial court has further directed that the period of detention undergone by the accused be set off against the sentence of conviction.

5. On the said application, a first information report was registered as Case Crime No. 165 of 2006, under Sections 332, 353 I.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut against the revisionist Amit on 09.11.2006 at 21:10 hrs. The chick first information report is marked as Exb: Ka-4 to the records. The site plan was prepared about the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer, the same is marked as Exb: Ka-2 to the records.

6. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet No. 87 dated 28.11.2006, under Sections 332, 353 I.P.C. was submitted against the accused Anil. The same is marked as Exb: Ka-3 to the records.

7. The trial court vide its order dated 30.09.2014 framed charges under Sections 353 I.P.C. and Section 332 I.P.C. against the accused Anil to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The matter was taken up for trial in which Constable 125 Mohammad Salim (P.W.-1) was examined who is the first informant and the injured, Constable 231 Sanowar Ali (P.W.-2) has been examined who is also said to have been posted at the same crossing where the incident is said to have taken place and is the person amongst others who had apprehended the accused from the place of occurrence, a Home Guard 1354 Raju (P.W.-3) was also posted at the same crossing where the incident is said to have taken place and is a witness to the incident and Constable Vinod Kumar (P.W.-4) has been produced who has identified the handwriting of Sub-Inspector Faheem Khan who was the Investigating Officer and had prepared the site plan and the charge-sheet.

10. The trial court vide its judgement and order dated 30.09.2014 came to its conclusion that the accused Anil had interrupted the informant in discharge of official duty of a Government servant and had used force upon him and as such is guilty of offences under Section 332 and 353 I.P.C. and convicted him as stated above.

11. Against the judgement and conviction dated 30.09.2014, the accused Anil preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide judgement and order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Meerut.