Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 265 (UTT)

Heeraman Mandal v. State Of Uttarakhand

2021-05-11

R.C.KHULBE

body2021
JUDGMENT R.C. Khulbe, J. - This criminal appeal, preferred u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2015, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2015, State vs. Hareeman Mandal whereby the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under section 366 IPC and sentenced him five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which, appellant to undergo further six months simple imprisonment . He was also convicted under section 376(1) IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default of which he has to undergo further nine months simple imprisonment. 2. Admit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the informant submitted information (Ex. A1) with Police Chawki Transit Camp, Rudrapur on 07.10.2014. On the basis of said report, chick FIR (Ex. A4) was lodged at P.S. Rudrapur on 07.10.2014 at 10.50 against the accused/appellant. The statement of the prosecutrix (Ex.A2) under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She was medically examined by the Government Doctor, Rudrapur. Accordingly, medical reports Ex. A3 and Ex. A4 were prepared. During investigation, site plant was prepared by the Investigating Officer which is Ex. A5. After recording the statement of the witnesses, charge sheet Ex. A6 was filed on 30.11.2014. Charges under section 366 and 376 IPC were framed against the accused/appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge on 03.02.2015. The appellant denied the allegation and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution produced PW1 Rakesh Rai, PW2 Saroj Bairagi, PW3 mother of the prosecutrix, PW4 prosecutrix, PW5 Dr. Sami Unnisa and PW6 I.O. Siraj Ahmed. 5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidence and stated that the prosecution produced false evidence against him. In defence, no evidence was produced. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this criminal appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned for the State through video conferencing and perused the entire evidence available on record. 8. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this criminal appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned for the State through video conferencing and perused the entire evidence available on record. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on evidence. He fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2014 and the appellant has already served more than six years in jail, having no criminal antecedent. He is the only bread earner of his family. The Court, while upholding appellant s conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the appellant and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the matter relates to the year 2014. The minimum punishment under section 376(1) IPC is seven years and seven years punishment is sufficient. 10. I have also gone through the evidence on record and came to this conclusion that the trial Court has convicted the appellant based on sufficient evidence, as produced by the prosecution. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings regarding conviction. As regard to the sentence is concerned, the incident is quite old. The appellant is the only bread earner of his family; he does not have any criminal antecedents in his past life; and, he is not required in any other criminal case except the present one, it is considered to be just and appropriate to reduce the sentence from ten years to seven years under section 376(1) IPC. As regard to the sentence awarded under section 366 IPC is concerned, there is no illegality in the impugned sentence. 11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is sentenced as follows:- A. The appellant is sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 376(1) IPC instead of ten years, as awarded by the trial Court. B. The conviction and sentence awarded u/s 366 IPC will remain intact. C. The fine awarded under each section is also maintained and he will deposit the fine and compensation as imposed by the trial Court. B. The conviction and sentence awarded u/s 366 IPC will remain intact. C. The fine awarded under each section is also maintained and he will deposit the fine and compensation as imposed by the trial Court. D. All the sentences shall run concurrently. E. On completion of period of sentence, as modified by this Court, he shall be released from jail, as per law. 12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.