Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 48 (UTT)

Sanjay Banal v. State Of Uttarakhand

2021-01-14

LOK PAL SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT Lok Pal Singh, J. - This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No.1817 of 2010 "State Vs. Harimohan", whereby the revisionist/accused has been convicted under Sections 353, 332 and 504 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) under Section 353 of IPC, to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) under Section 332 of IPC, and to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) under Section 504 of IPC. Against the order dated 11.07.2011, the revisionist filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2014. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the first information report was lodged against the revisionist/accused under Sections 353, 332 and 504 of IPC, at Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun alleging that the revisionist/accused has used the abusive words against the Government employees and did marpeet and caused hindrance in public work. After investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the revisionist/accused before the court concerned. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution got examined as many as four witnesses. PW1 Aavid Ali, PW2 P.S. Butola, PW3 Jagdish Prasad and PW4 Atar Singh have been examined. Thereafter, the statements of revisionist were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC. In reply, he denied the prosecution story. 4. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the trial court convicted the accused/revisionist under Sections 353, 332 and 504 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist preferred the appeal. The appellate court did not find favour to the revisionist and maintained the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 5. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the revisionist would confine his argument qua the quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the incident pertains to the year 2002. Since then, almost 18 years have elapsed and the revisionist is consistently facing mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal case against him. In such circumstances, learned counsel would submit that lenient view may be taken to reduce the sentence. He would submit that the incident pertains to the year 2002. Since then, almost 18 years have elapsed and the revisionist is consistently facing mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal case against him. In such circumstances, learned counsel would submit that lenient view may be taken to reduce the sentence. He, however, would submit that if the Court finds desirable, fine awarded by the trial court, may be enhanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. 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 orders passed by the courts below. The trial court as well as the appellate court has rightly convicted the revisionist under the aforesaid sections. The conviction of the revisionist is, therefore, affirmed. Now, this Court has to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence only. 8. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist to jail after a lapse of 18 years of the incident, as such the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone along with fine of Rs.25,000/-. 9. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed by affirming the conviction recorded by the courts below under Sections 353, 332 and 504 of IPC. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period of sentence undergone alongwith fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) which will be deposited by him before the trial court within one month from today. The revisionist will be entitled to adjustment of the fine already deposited by him, if any. In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above, sentence recorded by the courts below shall stand revived. 10. Revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender unless required in any other case. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court forthwith for compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.