Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 496 (UTT)

Tahal Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-11-25

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District U.S. Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2012, whereby the learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the revisionist was pleased to convict the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, he shall serve additional fifteen days imprisonment. The revisionist is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve additional one month imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist does not press this revision on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. 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 in the aforementioned offences is maintained. 3. Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist. He fairly concedes that revisionist has served about two months two days in the jail. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the poor person and the matter relates back to the year 2013. He further submits there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offences. He submits that revisionist has already served about two months two days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is a poor person and the fact that matter relates back to the year 2013, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence. Revisionist is in jail and the sentence is reduced, adjusting the period already undergone by the revisionist, as under:- (i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the sentence is reduced to three months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional one month imprisonment. Revisionist is in jail and the sentence is reduced, adjusting the period already undergone by the revisionist, as under:- (i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the sentence is reduced to three months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional one month imprisonment. (ii) For the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC, the sentence is reduced to three months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional one month imprisonment. (iii) All the sentences shall run concurrently. 6. The amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited before the trial Court within one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if not already deposited. 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.