Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 44 (UTT)

Raman Sharma v. State Of Uttarakhand

2021-01-13

LOK PAL SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT Lok Pal Singh, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge Ill/Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2007, whereby the said court has convicted the appellants under section 452 and 323 IPC. Each one of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count i.e. under section 452 and 323 IPC. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that PW1 Chotey Lal-complainant lodged a first information report (Ex.A1) with the averments that on 07.06.2004 he and his friend, namely, Hariom were in the function organized by one Shri Sanjay of his village; Rakesh Chaturvedi (accused no.3) along with his friends were also there; at about 1:00 p.m., Rakesh Chaturvedi called the complainant and uttered cast indicative words thereafter Rakesh Chaturvedi and his friends, namely, Raman Sharma and Gyanai started assaulting him with kick and fists and they also abused his friend Hariom and assaulted him. The persons who were present in the function intervened, and both the complainant and his friend succeeded to escape themselves from the clutches of the appellants, thereafter, complainant took shelter in his sister's home, namely, Smt. Veervati but the appellants who were armed with pistol, sword and double barrel followed the complainant and entered in the house of Smt. Veervati where they abused sister and brother in law (Jeeja) of the complainant and assaulted them; thereafter they forced the complainant to sit in the bolero car and dropped him in the lonely place with intention to kill him but as there was dark the complainant succeed to fled away from the place. 3. On the basis of said report FIR (Ex. Al) case crime no. 520 of 2004 under sections 504, 323, 452, 341, 506, 307 IPC and under section 3(l)(x) of S.C/S.T. Act was registered against the appellants. P.W.7 Shri Ranjeet Singh has conducted the investigation of the case and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet under sections 425, 323, 307, 304, 504 IPC and under section(l)(x) of S.C/S.T. Act . The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 452, 323, 307read with 149, 341, 504, 506 IPC and under section (l)(x) of S.C/S.T. Act against the accused/ appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 452, 323, 307read with 149, 341, 504, 506 IPC and under section (l)(x) of S.C/S.T. Act against the accused/ appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution got examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Chotey Lal (complainant, PW2 Chatarpal, PW3 Hariom (eye witness), PW4 Dr. Rajendra Singh, who medically examined the complainant, PW6 Smt. Veervati, sister of the complainant, PW6 Yogendra Giri, and PW7 Shri Ranjeet Singh Bora, Investigating officer of the case. 5. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to which they alleged that have been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties found that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of doubt and convicted them under section 323 and 452 IPC and sentenced them for a period of one year on each count with fine of Rs. 1000, however, acquitted them in the other offences. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, present appeal has been preferred by the accused/ appellants. 6. During the course of the argument, learned counsel has confined his argument to quantum of sentence and has prayed that he does not want to press his appeal on conviction. He would submit that the incident pertains to the year 2004. Since then, almost 16 years have been elapsed and due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings, appellants are facing consistently mental agony. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. The trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under the aforesaid sections. The conviction of the appellant is, therefore, affirmed. Now, this Court has to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants on the point of sentence only. 9. No minimum punishment is prescribed under sections 323 and 452 IPC. The trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under the aforesaid sections. The conviction of the appellant is, therefore, affirmed. Now, this Court has to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants on the point of sentence only. 9. No minimum punishment is prescribed under sections 323 and 452 IPC. Thus, having considered the fact that this incident is of the year 2004 and more than 16 years have been elapsed, it would be just and appropriate if the sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 10. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed by affirming the conviction recorded by the trial court under Sections 323 and 452 of IPC. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence of imprisonment is modified to the extent that appellants are sentenced to the period of sentence already undergone. Sentence of fine awarded by the trial court shall remain undisturbed. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. 11. Office is directed to communicate this decision to the court concerned forthwith and to send back the record.