Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 426 (UTT)

Mor Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-11-03

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in S.T. No. 08 of 2003, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and were sentenced to undergo for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants does not press this appeal on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the appellants' counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction under Sections 306 of IPC is maintained. 3. Learned State Counsel fairly concedes that the appellant no. 1 has served one year, one month and twenty seven days in jail and appellant no. 2 has served one year, one month and twenty two days in jail. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the appellant no.1 has undergone one year one month and twenty seven days in jail and appellant no. 2 has undergone one year one month and twenty two days in jail. He further submits that appellant no. 1 is about 81 years old and appellant no. 2 is about 74 years old and they are suffering from many old age ailments and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the appellants, may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. It is also submitted that there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence. 5. Since the appellant no. 1 has served one year one month and twenty seven days and appellant no. 2 has served one year one month and twenty two days in jail and also considering the fact that the appellants are old age persons suffering from old age ailments and also there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the appellants, is sufficient to serve the purpose. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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 under Section 306 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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 under Section 306 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. The sentence of fine of the appellants is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-each. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the appellants fail to deposit the amount of fine within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, they 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 order, along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned.