Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 554 (UTT)

Udal Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2019-11-02

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.C. Khulbe, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 374 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/First F.T.C. Nainital, in Session Trial No.111 of 2003, State vs. Udal and others, whereby the Court below convicted the appellant/accused- Udal Singh under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo seven years'' R.I. along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. Facts, in nutshell, are that on 31.05.2003 the complainant-Sheeshpal moved an application before the P.S. Ramnagar with the allegation that the accused has assaulted him on 11.05.2003. These persons want him and his family to drive away from the village. The whole village was in terror due to their hooliganism. He is alone and his land has been suppressed by them and due to their old enmity the accused come to his house and called him and fired on him. 3. On the basis of the above report, the case was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer, during investigation, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site map, after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 4. The case was, accordingly, committed to the court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned court below, accordingly, framed the charge against the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses, namely, PW1 Sheeshpal, PW2 Dhyan Singh, PW3 Puran, PW4 Ram Singh, PW5- S.I. Nanhe Lal, PW 6 Dr. Harish Lal, PW 7 Dr. B.N. Singh. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations made against him. 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. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. 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. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC 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. The reasons shown, for such a prayer, 16 years have elapsed since the incident took place; there is no intention to kill the injured person, there is no criminal history against him; and lastly, the accused is more than 80 years old and infirm. 10. As per the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 08.07.2004, the accused was 65 years old, which shows that the accused is more than 80 years old at present. As per the statement of learned counsel for the appellant the appellant is also infirm. From the evidence the incident took place all of a sudden and the appellant was provoked by the other persons. 11. Considering the nature of injuries and the age of the appellant, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant to nine months' R.I instead of seven years R.I. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is partly allowed. The conviction part of the appellant under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is left intact. However, the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to the appellant by the Court below, is hereby reduced to nine months' R.I instead of seven years R.I. u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 13. It is, however, clarified that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be adjusted from the sentence, as imposed/modified by this Court. 14. A copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below for compliance.