Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1629 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Chand

2018-09-11

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment, dated 6.12.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2007, modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 2.1.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal case No. 981/2006/17II/2006, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioneraccused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2005, at 10:05 AM complainant, who was reading newspaper in the compound of his house, was attacked by the accused. At about 10:30 AM, younger brother of the complainant i.e. accused Prem Chand, questioned the presence of tenant of the complainant in the compound of the house. Since, the complainant objected to the utterances of the accused, accused picked up wooden stick (''danda) lying in the compound of the house and inflected injuries on the head and left arm of the complainant, as a consequences of which, complainant suffered grievous as well as simple injuries. Subsequently, matter came to be reported to the police by the complainant, on the basis of which, a formal FIR Ex.PW5/B came to be lodged against the accused. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law i.e. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC vide judgment dated 2.1.2007 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC vide judgment dated 2.1.2007 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, present respondentaccused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., who vide judgment dated 6.12.2007 though upheld the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, but however modified the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to till the rising of the Court. In the aforesaid background, petitionerState has approached this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying therein for restoration of the judgment of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court after setting aside the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court ,Kullu. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that respondentaccused has not laid any challenge to the judgment, dated 6.12.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Kullu., whereby he has upheld the judgment of conviction recorded by the leaned trial Court. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel representing the respondentaccused,stated that since accused has already undergone punishment in terms of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, Kullu, there was no occasion, as such, for the accused to lay challenge to the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu. He further stated that accused being satisfied with the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu in appeal having been preferred by him, purposely not laid any challenge to the same and as such, same has attained finality. Since, there is no challenge, if any, to the judgment rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kullu, whereby admittedly conviction recorded by the learned trial Court has been upheld, this Court sees no reason to examine the evidence on record, be it ocular or documentary led on record by the respective parties, so as to evaluate the correctness and genuineness of the findings returned by the learned court below. PetitionerState is only aggrieved with the modification of the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, whereby respondentaccused came to be convicted and sentenced under Section 325 IPC. 7. Having carefully perused the reasoning rendered on record by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,Kullu while modifying the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the submissions having been made by Mr. S.C.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General that learned First Appellate Court has erred in law while reducing the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. As has been taken note hereinabvoe, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has not upset the finding returned by the learned trial Court, whereby accused has been held guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and as such, there is no force in the argument of Mr. S.C.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General that learned First Appellate Court has wrongly modified the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 8. It is not in dispute that the accused and complainant are the real brothers and dispute, if any, of accused was with the tenant of complainant, who incidentally at the time of alleged incident was present in the house of the complainant. There is no evidence, worth the name, available on record that accused had any kind of dispute with the complainant, rather complainant on account of certain utterances made by the accused against his tenant, picked up quarrel with the accused, who in the spur of moment gave blow of danda to the complainant causing injury. 9. Leaving everything aside, this Court find that the alleged incident had occurred in the year, 2005 i.e. 13 years back and this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that during this period accused must have undergone trauma of pendency of appeal before this Court, which is sufficient punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2007, which otherwise appear to be based upon correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.