Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 435 (UTT)

BHARAT SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-07-27

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, is got sent by appellant Bharat Singh, through Superintendent of District Jail, Dehradun. He has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, at Gopeshwar, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2008, under Section 436, 427, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 323 of I.P.C., imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 506 (2) of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 436 of I.P.C., and imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 427 of I.P.C. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant, and learned Brief Holder, for the State, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that PW-1 Dalbeer Singh was sitting in his shop on 01.02.2008 at about 6.30 p.m. When accused/appellant Bharat Singh came there. The complainant (PW1 Dalbeer Singh) asked the accused/appellant Bharat Singh to make outstanding dues clear, on which, the accused assaulted the complainant and threatened him of dire consequences. On the next day i.e. 02.02.2008, the accused/appellant Bharat Singh came at about noon and set the shop on fire by throwing kerosene oil at the shop. 4. The First Information Report (ExA1) was got lodged by PW-1 Dalbeer Singh with Patwari Cirle-Ghat (in District Chamoli) on the basis of which, Crime No. 01 of 2008 was registered, and the same was investigated by PW8 Anand Lal (In Uttrakhand Hills certain revenue officials have police powers). Meanwhile, the injuries on the person of Dalbeer Singh were examined by PW6 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, who prepared the injury report (Ex. A4). After inspecting the spot, and interrogating the witnesses, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex. A9) against the accused/appellant Bharat Singh for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 436, 427, 323, 506 of I.P.C. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, on receipt of the charge sheet, and after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. A9) against the accused/appellant Bharat Singh for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 436, 427, 323, 506 of I.P.C. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, on receipt of the charge sheet, and after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. On 26.05.2008, learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, after hearing the parties framed charge in respect of offences punishable under Section 436, 427, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., to which, the accused Bharat Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Dalbeer Singh (complainant and the injured), PW2 Mahaveer Singh, PW3 Smt. Pushpa Devi (wife of the complainant), PW4 Khilaf Singh, PW5 J.S. Gusain (witness of the incident of mischief by fire), PW6 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh (who recorded injuries on the person of the complainant), PW7 Smt. Sukri Devi (another witness of the incident of mischief by fire) and PW8 Anand Lal (Investigating Officer). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which, he pleaded that the evidence adduced against him is false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties found charge relating to all the four offences proved against the accused/appellant Bharat Singh, and convicted him accordingly. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 323 of I.P.C., imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 506 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 436 of I.P.C., and imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 427 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said order dated 28.04.2010, this appeal is preferred by the convict. 6. On going through the statements of PW1 Dalbeer Singh, PW2 Mahaveer Singh, PW3 Smt. Pushpa Devi, PW4 Khilaf Singh, PW5 J.S. Gusain and PW7 Smt. Shukri Devi, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under Section 436, 427, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., against the accused/appellant Bharat Singh. The testimony of all these witnesses of fact is natural and trustworthy. The testimony of all these witnesses of fact is natural and trustworthy. PW-2 Mahaveer Singh, PW4 Khilaf Singh and PW7 Smt. Shukri Devi are independent witnesses of the incident. The trial court has rightly believed their statements. Statement of PW1 Dalbeer Singh (injured eye witness) is corroborated from the statement of PW6 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh (who examined the injuries on the person of the complainant) and prepared the injury report Ex A4. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant argued before this Court that even if the charge is treated to be proved from the evidence on record, the trial court has awarded excessive punishment to the convict. Learned Amicus Curiae referred the principle of law laid down in Amar Nath Shukla Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases Page 390 and Ram Das Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar, 2001(4) Supreme page 277 and it is submitted that since the convict/appellant is languishing in jail for last more than four years, as such, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. On going through the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, and further considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the sentence awarded against the convict/appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail, which would meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 28.04.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli at Gopeshwar, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2008, so far as it relates to recording of conviction under Section 436, 427, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., is concerned, is hereby affirmed. But the sentence awarded by the trial court under the Sections mentioned above is hereby set aside. The sentence awarded against the accused/appellant Bharat Singh is modified, and he is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 436 of I.P.C., imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 of I.P.C., imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 427 of I.P.C., and imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 506 of I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. There is no sentence of fine awarded by this Court. There is no sentence of fine awarded by this Court. Since, the appellant is in jail since 11.03.2008, he has already completed more than four years in jail, as such, he shall be set at liberty, if not wanted in connection with any other crime. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of the jail concerned. Lower court record be sent back.