Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 531 (UTT)

Kallu v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-12-04

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2011, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1574 of 2008, whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further thirty days simple imprisonment. 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. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the poor person and the matter relates back to the year 2005. He further submits there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offences. He 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 2005, 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 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC to three months, adjusting the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve additional three months imprisonment. 6. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within fifteen days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 7. 6. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within fifteen days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. 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.