Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 263 (UTT)

Deshraj @ Dehsi v. State of Uttarakhand

2021-05-10

R.C.KHULBE

body2021
JUDGMENT : The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Haldwani (Nainital) in S.T. No.47 of 2018, whereby the Trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.25,000/-; he was also convicted u/s 26 of the Forest Act and sentenced to undergo six months’ R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, three months’ additional S.I. was awarded; the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. In short, case of the prosecution is that on 31.12.2017 at about 2:20 AM, when the forest officials were on duty at Forest Range Bannakhera, the informer gave information about the illegal forest activities being done by the accused-appellant. The appellant along with other persons were carrying the forest produce. On the intervention of the forest officials, the present appellant caused injury to the forest officials by firearm. The written information Ex.Ka-2 was, accordingly, submitted on 1.1.2018 at 12:15 PM with P.S. Kaladhungi, District Nainital. After investigation, charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-19) was submitted. After compliance of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the court of sessions. Accordingly the charge was framed against the appellant. The appellant denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried. 3. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution produced PW1 Sher Singh Bora, PW2 Naeem Ahmed, PW3 Sandeep Singh, PW4 S.C. Jalal, PW5 Dr. Chandresh Gangwar, PW6 Constable M.C. Bhatt, PW7 Sanjay Brijwal, PW8 Constable Anil Kr. Gupta, PW9 Govind Sinhg, PW10 S.I. Rajni Arya and PW11 H.C. Subhash Chaudhary. 4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that he did not commit any crime; and there is no evidence against him. In defence, DW1 Mangal Singh was produced. 5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the judgment. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State. 8. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he does not want to argue the case on merit, because the conviction of the appellant is based on material evidence. He fairly submitted that the accused has already served more than one year imprisonment; there is no criminal antecedent against him; no maximum punishment is prescribed under the offence; the matter relates to the year 2017; hence the Court, while upholding the conviction of sentence, may consider it appropriate to alter the sentence awarded to him and reduce it to the extent as already undergone by him. 9. The learned counsel for the State fairly submits that no maximum punishment is prescribed u/s 307 IPC and 16 months’ imprisonment is sufficient in this case. 10. I have also gone through the evidence on record and come to this conclusion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant based on material evidence produced by the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the impugned findings regarding conviction. 11. From a perusal of the record and considering the facts that the matter relates to the year 2017and it seems to have occurred at the spur of the moment; the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent in his past life; he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question, accordingly, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the sentence of the appellant from 5 years to that of sixteen months’ R.I. under Section 307 IPC. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals is allowed in part. The appellant is sentenced as follows:- A. The appellant-Deshraj @ Deshi is sentenced to sixteen months’ R.I. u/s 307 instead of five years’ R.I. as awarded by the court below; B. The conviction and sentence awarded to him under Section 26 of the Forest Act is left intact. C. The fine awarded under each section is also maintained, and he shall deposit the fine as imposed by the trial court. D. The aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. C. The fine awarded under each section is also maintained, and he shall deposit the fine as imposed by the trial court. D. The aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. E. On completion of period of sentence as modified by this Court, the appellant shall be released from jail as per law and after due verification of records. 13. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with LCR be sent to the court concerned for compliance.