Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 253 (UTT)

SONA DEVI v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2015-05-20

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present Criminal Appeal, convicts-appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 17th April, 2003, whereby the accused-appellants Smt. Sona Devi, Smt. Surja Devi, Chandru and Girbir Chand were convicted of the offences punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 325 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323 read with 34 IPC, one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which, they were required to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentences, present Criminal Appeal was preferred the appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted at the very outset that he has nothing to say on the merits of the case. He prayed that the accused-appellants are not previous convicts, therefore, they should be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the State is not averse to the idea of granting benefit of Reformatory-law to the appellants, in the absence of there being anything against them in the past. 3. In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the appellants, the conviction of the appellants as regards the offences complained of against them (Sections 323 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34 and 325 r/w 34 IPC) is affirmed. Otherwise also, on the basis of evidence on record, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the findings (of conviction) arrived at by the Trial Court. 4. According to the prosecution version, PW 1 Smt. Meena Devi wrote a complaint to patwari Chowki Hitan, tehsil Dunda, on 09.10.2000, at 10:30 a.m. with the facts enumerating therein that, on 05.10.2000, at 9:00 p.m., when she went to her fields, she saw that accused-appellants were cutting crop of groundnuts in her field. When she refrained them from doing so, they (appellants) hurled abuses at her (informant). She went back to her home and told the story to her husband. When she refrained them from doing so, they (appellants) hurled abuses at her (informant). She went back to her home and told the story to her husband. When her husband was going to lodge the FIR at chowki, the accused-appellants intercepted him on his way and without saying anything, assaulted him with sickle, stick and knife. When the blood started oozing from the head of her husband, the appellants took him and left at the chowk. 5. Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-6) was prepared on the basis of Ext. Ka-1. It was registered as case crime no. 4 of 2000, under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 147 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. PW1 Smt. Meena Devi (informant), PW 2 Vijay Pal Singh, PW 3 Smt. Ela Devi, PW 4 Dr. Y.S.Rana, PW 5 Dr. Mahesh Kudiyal, PW 6 Dr. Buddhi Singh Bisht, and PW 7 Chatar Singh Panwar were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2003, convicted the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 323 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34 and 325 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them as above. 7. Learned Trial Court gave elaborate reasons for coming to the conclusion that the offences punishable under Sections 323 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34 and 325 r/w 34 IPC were proved against the accused-appellants. The evidence, thus brought on record, was rightly appreciated by the Court below. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order in so far as holding the appellants guilty of offences proved against them is concerned. No interference is thus called for in the order of conviction of the accused-appellants under Sections 323 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34 and 325 r/w 34 IPC. 8. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order in so far as holding the appellants guilty of offences proved against them is concerned. No interference is thus called for in the order of conviction of the accused-appellants under Sections 323 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34 and 325 r/w 34 IPC. 8. Considering the nature of the offences proved against the accused-appellants and the fact that they are not previous convicts, this Court is persuaded to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused-appellants should be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in the interest of their community as well as in the interest of justice. 9. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused-appellants should be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is, therefore, acceptable. 10. Thus, instead of sentencing the accused-appellants at once and sending them to prison, it is directed that they shall be released on probation on their each entering into a bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Uttarkashi, to appear and receive the sentences when called upon during the period of three years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. The offenders shall remain under the supervision of District Probation Officer, Uttarkashi, during such period (of three years). If the offenders are found to be violating any of the conditions made in the supervision order, they shall undergo the entire sentence which has been awarded to the appellants by the Trial Court. Accused-appellants are directed to appear before the Court concerned on or before 20.06.2014 to file required bonds etc. 11. With the directions as above, the Criminal Appeal is finally disposed of. Let the Lower Court Record be transmitted back for ensuring compliance.