Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 336 (UTT)

Vishnu v. State Of Uttaranchal

2020-09-09

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.03.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/IInd FTC Haridwar District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 22/2001. By the said judgment and order dated 17.03.2004, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323 IPC. Under Section 147 IPC, the appellants were imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 323 of IPC also, the appellants were imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-. In the event of non-payment of fine of Rs. 1000/-, the appellants will have to undergo simple imprisonment of one month. 2. Brief facts of the case are that there had been an altercation between the informant and appellants regarding installation of the electric pole, which was going through the fields of the informant. The informant objected to the same, because of which the appellants were having grudges against him. On, 08.09.1998 at around 10 A.M., when the informant was in his home, all the appellants together came into the house of informant with lathi and danda in their hands and started hurling casteist abuses on him and threatened to kill him and said that they will get the line through his fields. The informant thereafter said that if they wanted electricity for tube well, then they can get it from chakroad; and said that he will not allow them to install the Pole in his fields. Thereafter, the appellants started beating the informant aggressively and hurled casteist abuses on him. Thereafter, few persons namely Dharmu, Sompal, Roopchandra and Lalu came to the place of incident and saved the informant. During all this, the informant sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital by the said persons, who saved him. 3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC read with Sections 34, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 147 and 323 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants does not press this appeal on merits. He submits his arguments only on the sentence of fine. Since the appellants' counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants does not press this appeal on merits. He submits his arguments only on the sentence of fine. Since the appellants' counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the appellants are poor persons and they are the only bread earners of their families. He also submits that the appellant no. 4, namely Sashikant Kaushik has died and Bailable Warrants was executed only on appellant nos. 1 to 3. 6. Learned State Counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is also submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence of fine awarded to the appellants, nor is any sympathy called for in the instant case. 7. Considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence of fine, is sufficient to serve the purpose. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the appellants are poor persons, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved, if the sentence of total fine is reduced from Rs. 1000/- to 500/- each. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merits. Accordingly, the fine imposed on the appellants under Section 147 IPC is reduced to Rs. 250/- and the fine imposed on the appellants under Section 323 of IPC is also reduced to Rs. 250/-. The reduced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court. If the appellants fail to deposit the reduced amount of fine within one month from today, they shall serve fifteen days simple imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 9. Since the matter is finally disposed of, the order dated 13.08.2020, whereby Bailable Warrants were issued against the appellants, has got merged in the final order and as such the Warrant Recall Application No. 2977 of 2020 is dismissed as infructuous. 10. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent back to the trial Court concerned for doing the needful at the earliest.