Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 427 (UTT)

Ishwar Singh Bora v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-11-03

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal jail appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2017 whereby the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the conviction dated 06.04.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 2081 of 2015. By the said order dated 06.04.2017, the revisionist has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the revisionist has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is a poor person and is suffering from many ailments. It is also submitted that the revisionist is the only bread earner of his family. He further submits that the revisionist has served almost two months in jail and prays that the substantive sentence awarded to the revisionist may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 3. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the revisionist submits his arguments are only on the quantum of sentence and prayed that the quantum be modified to the sentence already undergone by the revisionist. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that the revisionist has only served 30 days in jail which is too short period. 5. Since the revisionist's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction of the revisionist, as ordered by the trial Court, is maintained. 6. The appellant is a poor person and the only bread earner of his family, I am of the considered view that the imprisonment of two months would be sufficient to meet the end of justice. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and the fact that the revisionist is a poor person, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to two months adjusting the period already undergone by him. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and the fact that the revisionist is a poor person, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to two months adjusting the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to two months of rigorous imprisonment adjusting the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence under Section 279 IPC is modified to two months of rigorous imprisonment. The sentence under Section 304A IPC is also modified to two months of rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently adjusting the period already served. The sentence of fine under Section 304A IPC is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs.4,000/ .The enhanced amount shall be deposited before the trial Court adjusting the fine already deposited as per rules within a period of two weeks. If the revisionist fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within a period of two weeks, he shall serve the two months rigorous imprisonment in addition. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 8. The revisionist shall surrender before the concerned Court below to serve the remaining sentence as modified above within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 9. 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.