Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 309 (UTT)

Raman Singh Bisht v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-08-20

R.C.KHULBE

body2020
JUDGMENT R.C. Khulbe, J. - Since the above two appeals relate to the same incident and the appellant in both the appeals is also one and the same, hence, these appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant Raman Singh Bisht under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the common judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in S.T. No.161/13, State v. Raman Singh and another, and S.T. No.162/13, State Vs. Raman Singh, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant Raman Singh Bisht under Section 307 IPC/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' R.I. with fine of Rs.20,000/-. Appellant Raman Singh was further tried and convicted under Section 25 Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-. 3. Brief facts of the case are that PW3 Darban Singh Negi submitted information (Ex. Ka-1) on 18.07.2013 with P.S. Nehru Colony Dehradun. On the basis of the said information, Chick FIR Ex. Ka-12 was lodged on the very same day at under Sections 307 and 506 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet Ex.Ka-27 was submitted under Sections 307/506/34 IPC against the present appellant Raman Singh Bisht. 4. During the course of investigation, an illegal weapon was also recovered from the possession of appellant-Raman Singh, for which a separate FIR bearing Crime No.185/2013 was lodged under Section 25 Arms Act against Raman Singh Bisht. In the charge sheets submitted under Section 25 Arms Act as also u/s 307 and 506 IPC, learned Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance on 02.09.2013. 5. After providing the copies, as provided under section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The matter was transferred to Fourth Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun, who framed the charge under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 506 IPC as well as under Section 25 Arms Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution produced PW1 Navdeep Negi, PW2 Pradeeep Tiwari, PW3 Darban Singh, PW4 Saurabh Mamgain, PW5 Manoj Singh, PW6 Dr. Rohit Arora, PW7 S.I. Ravi Kumar, PW8 Abdul Kalam, PW9 Ranjeet Ram and PW10 Inspector Sanjay Kumar. 7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the evidence as produced by the prosecution. No evidence was adduced in defence. Rohit Arora, PW7 S.I. Ravi Kumar, PW8 Abdul Kalam, PW9 Ranjeet Ram and PW10 Inspector Sanjay Kumar. 7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the evidence as produced by the prosecution. No evidence was adduced in defence. After hearing the parties, learned Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the judgment. Aggrieved by it, the present appeals are preferred. 8. I have also gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Navdeep Negi, PW2 Pradeeep Tiwari, PW3 Darban Singh, PW4 Saurabh Mamgain, PW5 Manoj Singh, PW6 Dr. Rohit Arora, PW7 S.I. Ravi Kumar, PW8 Abdul Kalam, PW9 Ranjeet Ram and PW10 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, and reached to the conclusion that the testimony of the above witnesses is not only natural but also trustworthy. All those witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the trial Court during trial but nothing has come out in their evidence which may create any doubt in their evidence. I also came to this conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has successfully proved the Charge under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act against the appellant-Raman Singh Bisht. The conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on evidence. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly argued that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on evidence and there is no illegality in the impugned finding of conviction recorded by 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 some extent; the reasons for such a prayer is that appellant does not have any criminal history; he has already served for more than four years imprisonment; he is the sole bread earner in his family and therefore, the sentence may be reduced. 10. Learned State Counsel also does not oppose in granting the aforesaid prayer. 11. 10. Learned State Counsel also does not oppose in granting the aforesaid prayer. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case i.e. the appellant has already served for more than four years' rigorous imprisonment, there is no criminal history against him, the matter relates to the year 2013, and also looking to the nature of the case, four years and five months' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. 12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, both the appeals preferred by the appellant-Raman Singh Bisht is partly allowed with the following directions: - A. The conviction part of the appellant-Raman Singh Bisht, as awarded by the Trial Court under 307/34 IPC as well as u/s 25 Arms Act, is maintained. B. Insofar as the sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court u/s 307/34 IPC is concerned, the same is hereby reduced to four years and five months' rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years' R.I. as awarded by the Trial Court. C. However, the sentence of imprisonment and fine, as awarded to the appellant u/s 25 Arms Act, is left intact. D. The fine as imposed by the Trial Court under Section 307/34 of IPC, against the appellant, is reduced to Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand only) instead of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the Trial Court. The appellant shall deposit the fine, which shall be a condition precedent for his release. E. Both the sentences of appellant u/s 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, as modified by this Court, shall run concurrently. F. The period already undergone by the appellant shall be set off, after verifying the documents, as envisaged under Section 428 Cr.P.C. G. On completion of sentence of four years and five months, as modified by this Court, appellant Raman Singh Bisht shall be released from jail forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 13. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below for compliance. 14. Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the record of this case along with a copy of this judgment for onwards compliance. 15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.