Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 185 (UTT)

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-11

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in criminal appeal no.23 of 2010, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist and affirmed the judgment and order dated 26.05.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in criminal case no.888 of 2004, whereby the revisionist/accused has been convicted under Section 419 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs.200/-; further convicted under Section 420 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.500/-; further convicted under Section 467 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with a fine of Rs.2000/-; further convicted under Section 468 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.1000/-. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. After arguing a case up to a length learned counsel for the revisionist confined his challenge and prayer only to the sentenced part. He would submit that the revisionist is languishing in jail since 30.04.2016 and he has served more than three years of sentence till date while the maximum sentence awarded to the revisionist is four years. He drew attention of this Court to the fact that the revisionist is seriously ill and is suffering from ailment of chronic alcoholic liver disease with anemia. In this regard, an affidavit of Pairokar has also been filed on behalf of the revisionist annexing the medical reports of the revisionist. In the above circumstances, learned counsel would submit that this Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to him for the period already undergone alongwith fine. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as perused the record of the case. 4. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 6 SCC 404 and others has interfered with the order of High Court, by modifying respective jail sentences of three accused to that already undergone, while enhancing fine amount awarded by High Court, and also, acquitting the fourth. 4. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 6 SCC 404 and others has interfered with the order of High Court, by modifying respective jail sentences of three accused to that already undergone, while enhancing fine amount awarded by High Court, and also, acquitting the fourth. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder: “14. This we are inclined to do for the following reasons: 14.1. First, the incident is of 1998 and we are in 2018. In other words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that this litigation is pending in various Courts. 14.2. Second, there were seven injuries noticed by the doctor on the body of injured-Tej Singh but the injuries noticed were not very serious in nature as would be clear from the Doctor’s report mentioned above. 14.3. Third, Tej Singh survived leaving no disability much less permanent on his body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty years after the date of alleged incident and died recently in last week as was stated by learned counsel for the appellants. 14.4. Fourth, all the appellants(accused) have undergone almost one year of jail sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence awarded by the High Court except appellant No.2 - Suresh(A-2), who underwent around three months. 14.5. Fifth, all the appellants were first offender and were not found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20 years, though remained on bail throughout and lastly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to be in Government Service.” 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the revisionist has served more than three years of sentence, as also in view of the fact that the revisionist is suffering from serious ailments as well as in keeping in mind the judgment rendered in the case of Naresh1, this Court is inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the revisionist for reduction of his sentence. 6. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of revisionist under Section 419, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, passed by the courts below is confirmed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of revisionist under Section 419, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, passed by the courts below is confirmed. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period of sentence undergone alongwith fine imposed by the courts below which will be deposited by him before the trial court within two months from today. The revisionist will be entitled to adjustment of the fine already deposited by him, if any. 7. Revisionist is in jail. Let him be released forthwith if not required in any other case. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court forthwith for compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.