Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 389 (UTT)

Pushkar Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-08

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2012, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve additional one year rigorous 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 in 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 02 years 05 months 14 days in the jail. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a poor person and there is no one to do parivi on his behalf. He further submits that the matter relates back to the year 2012. He further submits there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offence. He submits that appellant has already served about 02 years 05 months 14 days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Since the appellant has served 02 years 05 months 14 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 back to the year 2012, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. 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. 20,000/- 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. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within a month 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 a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, he shall serve the additional one year 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. A copy of this order also be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned for compliance.