Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 418 (UTT)

PRADEEP v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-08-01

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No.02 of 2010, State vs. Pradeep whereby, the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, and was sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. However, the appellant was acquitted for the offence u/s 366 and 376 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the complainant Jagdish Lal gave a written information at Police Station- Purola on 18.11.2009 mentioning therein that his daughter aged about 20 years is missing since 12.11.2009. They searched a lot for her but could not find her so far. Therefore, the report of missing of the girl may be lodged. 3. On the basis of the above report of the complainant on 29.12.2009 at 17:55 PM in the evening naming the accused Pradeep along with Jayendra Singh, Gurudev Singh and Sobat Singh, the case was registered under Sections 366, 376, 504, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (x) (xii) S.C. & S.T. Act. It was entered in the General Diary in the Police Station-Purola, District Uttarkashi. The Investigating Officer during investigation prepared the site map after inspecting the place of occurrence and took the photographs of the place of occurrence. 3. Investigating Officer conducted investigation in the matter and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 366, 376, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) (xii) S.C. & S.T. Act. 4. The trial court framed charges against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) S.C. & S.T. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove the prosecution story, PW-1 Dr. Mayank Upadhyay, PW-2 Jagdish Lal-complainant, PW-3 Surya Lal, PW-4 Anarkali, PW-5 Ajay Kumar, PW-6 Subhash Chandra Kukreti were examined as prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 6. The trial court, having perused the entire material made available on record, vide judgment and order under appeal, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred present appeal. 7. Thereafter, the statement of appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 6. The trial court, having perused the entire material made available on record, vide judgment and order under appeal, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred present appeal. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire material available on the record. 8. Mr. B.S. Negi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Section 3(1)(xii) S.C. & S.T. Act is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also does not want lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court may be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. The reasons shown for such a prayer are that appellant is the sole bread earner in the family; 10 years have elapsed since the incident took place; and lastly, the appellant was sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment, out of which, he has already served for more than five months. A report to this extent, sent by the In-charge Jailor, District Jail, New Tehri has been produced today in the Court by learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 12. 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 six months' R.I., as is the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is partly allowed. The conviction part of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (xii) of the S.C. & S.T. Act is left intact. However, the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to the appellant by the Court below, is hereby reduced to six months' R.I. The appellant, however, shall deposit the fine, as imposed upon him by the Court below. 14. It is, however, clarified that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be adjusted from the sentence, as imposed/modified by this Court. 15. A copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below.