Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 426 (UTT)

DEEPNA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-08-17

R.C.KHULBE

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudrapur (U.S. Nagar) in S.T. No.249 of 2011, State vs. Deepna, whereby, the appellant-accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' R.I. with fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 Narayan Singh gave oral information on 02.04.2011 with the averments that on that day at about 8 PM, his father Lakhan Singh was sitting in his shop next to the temple. The appellant, in the state of inebriation, sat in the temple wearing the slippers. Lakhan Singh directed the appellant not to sit in the temple wearing slippers and to go to his house; on this, the appellant pushed the father of complainant, who thus, fell down; instead of lifting him, appellant then hit two more fists due to which his father, being old, became unconscious. When he was taken to the doctor, he was declared brought dead. 3. On the basis of the above report, the case was registered against the appellant. The Investigating Officer during investigation prepared the site map after inspecting the place of occurrence and accordingly submitted the charge-sheet against him. 4. The trial court framed Charge against the appellant-accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Narayan Singh, PW2 Smt. Anjana, PW3 Smt. Tarawati, PW4 Babu Ram, PW5 Dr. B.C. Joshi, PW6 Constable Ravikant Shukla and PW7 S.I. (Retd.) Bansidhar Joshi. 6. Thereafter, the statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations levelled against him. 7. The trial court, having perused the entire material made available on record, vide the judgment and order under appeal, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred present appeal. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire material available on the record. 9. 7. The trial court, having perused the entire material made available on record, vide the judgment and order under appeal, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred present appeal. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire material available on the record. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and she also does not want to lay any challenge on the same; she only confined her prayer to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court may be reduced to five years' R.I. The reasons shown for such a prayer are that appellant is the sole bread earner in the family; he was only 23 years of age at that time; there is no criminal history against him; and lastly, the appellant was sentenced for ten years' rigorous imprisonment, against which, he has already served a substantive period. 10. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant to five years' R.I., instead of seven years, as awarded by the Court below. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is partly allowed. The conviction part of the appellant under 304 (Part II) IPC is left intact. However, the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to the appellant by the Court below under the aforesaid Section, is hereby reduced to five years' R.I., instead of ten years. The appellant, however, shall deposit the fine, as imposed upon him by the Court below. 12. It is clarified that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be adjusted from the sentence, as imposed/modified by this Court. 13. A copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below.