Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 442 (UTT)

SANJU @ SANDEEP TAMTA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-08-09

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2014 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Special S.T. No.03 of 2014, State vs. Sanju @ Sandeep Tamta, whereby, the appellant-accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-. Appellant was also found guilty for the offence under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Advances Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act'), and sentenced to undergo ten years' R.I., with fine of Rs.10,000/-, along with default stipulations of fine under both the sections. All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the complainant Ganga Devi gave written information at RoP Pipalkoti (Chamoli) on 27.12.2013, mentioning therein that on 25.12.2013, she along with her family had gone to see ‘Pandav-Leela' in the village. Her daughter (prosecutrix) was sitting with Sanju and Ankush Panwar of the village. At 9 PM, when she began to return, his daughter was not found there. A suspicion was raised in the FIR that Sanju (appellant herein) with the help of co-accused Ankush has taken her away. 3. On the basis of the above report of the complainant, the case was registered under Sections 363, 366, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer during investigation prepared the site map after inspecting the place of occurrence and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and also under Section 3/4 of the Act. 4. The trial court accordingly framed the charges against the appellant-accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of victim), PW2 Mohan Singh, PW3 (victim, name not disclosed), PW4 Dr. Garima Dhyani, PW5 C/C Asha Rawat, PW6 Constable Dharmendra Singh, PW7 S.I. Mahipal Singh, PW7 SSI Devraj Sharma, PW9 Vineet Kumar and PW10 Madan Singh, were produced. 6. Thereafter, the statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In oral evidence, he produced DW1 Ramesh Lal and DW2 Sanjay Kumar. 7. 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. 8. 6. Thereafter, the statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In oral evidence, he produced DW1 Ramesh Lal and DW2 Sanjay Kumar. 7. 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. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire material available on the record. 9. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Section 363 IPC and also under Section 3/4 of the 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 seven years' sentence which is the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. The reasons shown for such a prayer are that appellant is the sole bread earner in the family; he was 19 years at that time and was a student; 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 seven years' R.I., as is the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is partly allowed. The conviction part of the appellant under Section 3/4 of the Act is left intact. However, the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to the appellant by the Court below under the said Section, is hereby reduced to seven years' R.I., instead of ten years. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 363 of the IPC is, however, left intact. The appellant, however, shall deposit the fine, as imposed upon him by the Court below. Both these sentences shall run concurrently. 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.