- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The revisionist was convicted in criminal case No. 471 of 1992 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mehiauni, Lalitpur for the offence under Section 456, IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year R. I. and pay fine of Rs. 100. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo 15 days R. I. Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1994 filed by him was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur on 25-1-1995. The sentence was, however, reduced to six months R. I. and line of Rs. 100 but the sentence in default of payment of fine was maintained. Aggrieved by it the accused has come to this Court in revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned State Counsel. The first point urged is that the charge was framed under Section 457/511, IPC but as no charge was framed under Section 456, IPO even in the alternative, the conviction of the revisionist is bad. The offence under Section 456, IPC is a lesser offence than the offence under Section 457, IPC and I do not think that there was any illegality on the part of the courts below to convict him for lesser offence. It does not appear from the material placed on record or from the arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionist that he was in any way prejudiced by not framing charge under Section 456, I PC. It was then urged that the incident is said to have taken place at 1-00 a. m. while the FIR was lodged at 15-05 hours and that this delay of about 14 hours has not been explained. From the judgments of the courts below it appears that Nala intervened between the village of the complainant and the police station and that Nala was flooded due to rains. This appears to be the valid explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The revisionist was arrested at the spot and was taken to the police station at the time the FIR was lodged. He was also medically examined and found injured which would support the prosecution story that he was arrested at the spot and then given a beating.
(3.) BOTH the courts below have discussed the oral evidence in some details. I agree with the decision arrived at by the courts below on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case. No case for interference in the order of convic tion has been made out. It was, however, urged that the benefit of First Offenders Probation Act should be extended to him as there is nothing on the record to indicate that he is a previous convict. I have considered the submis sion made in this behalf by the learned counsel for the revisionist but find myself unable to agree to it. In the facts and circumstances and in the manner the offence was committed, the revisionist is not entitled to that benefit. I, however, find that the sentence of six months awarded to the revisionist is somewhat severe. A sentence of three months and line of Rs. 100 would meet the ends of justice.;