Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 25 (UTT)

PAPPU ALIAS PUSHKAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2021-01-11

LOK PAL SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Criminal Case No.174 of 2013 State vs. Pappu alias Pushkar Singh and another, whereby the accused-revisionists have been convicted u/s 452 of I.P.C. and have been convicted sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/-. They have further directed u/s 323 of IPC and have been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the revisionists have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. They have been further convicted under Section 504 & 506 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- each in each Section. In default of payment of fine, the revisionists have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The court below directed that all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused/revisionists also challenged the judgment and order dated 29.11.2014 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal appeal No. 10 of 2013 “Pappu alias Pushkar Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand", whereby courts below have convicted and sentenced the accused-revisionists u/s 323, 504 506 of I.P.C. and acquitted the accused-revisionists under Section 452 I.P.C. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.08.2011, a report at Kotwali-Pancheswar, District Champawat was lodged by one Joga Singh PW1 with the averments that while he was going to the market to get the household goods, the accused/revisionist-Pappu and Girdhar Singh, who was riding the motor cycle, stopped the motor cycle and both of them grabbed my collar and started the fight. Thereafter, Joga Singh escaped after saving his life and came to one Chandra Singh's house. Both of them ran to Chandra Singh's house and started abusing him and present accused/revisionists assaulted him with a stick, as a result of which, he become unconscious and fell down on the floor. Due to the incident, Joga Singh and Chander Singh were suffering from lot of injuries. These two brothers threatened to kill us. After registration of F.I.R., the investigation was commenced. Due to the incident, Joga Singh and Chander Singh were suffering from lot of injuries. These two brothers threatened to kill us. After registration of F.I.R., the investigation was commenced. The Investigation Officer during the course of investigation recorded the statements of injured, prepared the site-plan and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused/revisionists for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. 3. Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused persons as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter, the Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, framed charge under Sections 452, 323, 504 & 506 of I.P.C.. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Joga Singh, PW2 Laxmi Devi, PW3 Sunita Devi, PW4 Manju Devi, PW5 Chander Singh, PW6 Praveen Chander Pandey, PW7 S.I. Damodar Bhatt (Investigating Officer), PW8 Dr. K.R. Saun and PW9 Dr. S.S. Bisht. Thereafter, oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C in the form of questions, in reply to which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties and perusal of evidence, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused/revisionists Pappu @ Pushkar and Girdhari Singh, as above. Feeling aggrieved, they have preferred this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists would confine his argument qua the quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the incident relates to the year 2011 and almost 10 years have passed till date. Since then the revisionists are facing mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal case against them. He would further submit that the accused/revisionists were acquitted under Section 452 of I.P.C. by the trial court. He requests the Court to take a lenient view by reducing the sentence of the revisionists to the period already undergone. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. He would further submit that the accused/revisionists were acquitted under Section 452 of I.P.C. by the trial court. He requests the Court to take a lenient view by reducing the sentence of the revisionists to the period already undergone. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is also of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the revisionists to jail after a lapse of about 10 years of the incident, as such the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed by affirming the conviction of the revisionists/accused under Sections 323, 504 & 506 of IPC. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent that each one of the revisionists are sentenced for the period already undergone. The revisionists will be entitled to adjustment of the fine already deposited by them, if any. 10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for ensuring compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.