Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 808 (UTT)

BALAK SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2012-12-28

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. These two appeals, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), are directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1993, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellants Balak Singh, Vinod Singh, Darban Singh and Ramesh Singh under section 147 and 325/149 of I.P.C., and each one of appellants has been sentenced to fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 147 of I.P.C. Each one of the accused/appellants Balak Singh, Vinod Singh and Darpan Singh has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 325/149 of I.P.C. Accused/appellant Ramesh Singh has been sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and directed to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-under section 325/149 of I.P.C. Accused/appellant Balak Singh has been further convicted under section 148 of I.P.C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned counsel for the State and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.04.1993, at about 7.30 p.m., when PW1 Deewan Singh, PW2 Manoj Singh, PW3 Jitendra Singh were coming to their houses in Village Pratappur. Accused/appellants Balak Singh, Vinod Singh, Darban Singh, Ramesh Singh and two others namely Balwant Singh and Virendra Singh stopped them and voluntarily caused hurt to them with deadly weapons. One of the injuries suffered by PW1 Deewan Singh was found grievous in nature. The report of the incident was lodged by PW1 Deewan Singh at Police Station Kaladhungi, on the very day (11.04.1993) at about 8.05 p.m. The investigation was taken up by PW4 Sub Inspector Sayyad Anwar Ali. The injuries on person of the above mentioned three namely Deewan Singh, Manoj Singh and Jitendra Singh were recorded by PW4 Dr. C.M. Chaturvedi, on the very day (11.04.1993) at 8.40 p.m. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellants and two others namely Balwant Singh and Virendra Singh for their trial in respect of offences punishable 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 506 and 307 of I.P.C. 4. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on 21.04.1994, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 147, 148 and 307/149 of I.P.C., against all the accused namely Balwant Singh, Virendra Singh, Balak Singh, Vinod Singh, Govind Singh, Ramesh Singh and Darban Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused Virendra Singh was further charged under section 25 of Arms Act, to which also said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Deewan Singh, (injured eyewitness) PW2 Manoj Singh (injured eyewitness), PW3 Jitendra Singh (injured eyewitness), PW4 Dr. C.M. Chaturvedi, PW5 Dr.P.C. Kapri (Radiologist), PW6 Sayyad Anwar Ali and PW7 Sub Inspector Y.K.Puniya. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence was adduced. 5. The trial court after discussion of the evidence found that only charge of offences punishable under section 147 and 325/149 of I.P.C., is proved against all the accused. Accused Balak Singh was further found guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 148 of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence each one of the convicts was sentenced for fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 147 of I.P.C. Each one of the three convicts namely Balak Singh, Vinod Singh and Darban Singh was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 325/149 of I.P.C., but the rest of the convicts Balwant Singh, Virendra Singh, Ramesh Singh and Govind Singh were sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and directed to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under section 325/149 of I.P.C. Accused Balak Singh was further convicted to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under section 147 of I.P.C., Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 14.03.200 1 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1993, these two appeals are filed by the four convicts only. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants did not argue the appeal on the conviction, but simply submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial court is discriminately in nature. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants did not argue the appeal on the conviction, but simply submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial court is discriminately in nature. It is argued that on the same set of facts, the three accused were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 325/149 of I.P.C., but in respect of other four accused/convicts the trial court simply directed them to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. 7. Having reassessed the evidence on record, this Court finds that the trial court has adopted the discriminately approach while awarding the sentence to the convicts. On same set of facts the younger accused persons (not juveniles) were let of by directing them to undergo till rising of court and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under section 325/149 of I.P.C, but the older accused with no special role to them were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on the same count (under section 325/149 of I.P.C). This approach on the part of the trial court in sentencing appears to be arbitrary in nature. The role of the two sets of accused is hardly different in the prosecution story. 8. In the above circumstances, in order to do justice with the appellants before this Court it will be just and proper to reduce the sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused/appellants to the period already undergone by them during investigation/trial. 9. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of affirming the conviction of the accused/appellants namely Balak Singh, Vinod Singh, Darban Singh and Ramesh Singh recorded by the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani) vide its judgment and order dated 14.03.2001 passed and Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1993, but the sentence awarded against the accused/appellants is reduced to the period already undergone during investigation/trial, [as the trial court has let of and the other three convicts Balwant Singh, Virendra Singh and Govind Singh on same set of facts by awarding them sentence till rising of the court and directing them to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (under section 325/149 of I.P.C.)]. The sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellants under section 147 of I.P.C., is not interfered with. 3,000/- (under section 325/149 of I.P.C.)]. The sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellants under section 147 of I.P.C., is not interfered with. However, the punishment awarded the accused/appellant Balak Singh under section 148 of I.P.C., is also reduced to the period already undergone. The accused/appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their sureties are discharged. Lower court record be sent back.