Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 361 (UTT)

Vinod Joshi v. State Of Uttaranchal

2020-10-01

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2004, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (2) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further six months simple imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction for the aforementioned offence is maintained. 3. Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the appellant. He fairly concedes that appellant has served about four years two months twenty days in the jail. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a poor person and he is the only bread earner of his family. He submits that appellant has already served about four years two months twenty days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the appellant, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence. 5. Since the appellant has served four years two months twenty days imprisonment and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the appellant, is sufficient to serve the purpose. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that the appellant is a poor person and the matter relates to the year 2004, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the appellant fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, he shall serve the additional six months imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 7. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned for doing the needful at the earliest.