Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 49 (UTT)

Anil Sharma 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 20.10.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class/IInd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Haridwar in Criminal Case No.1267 of 2014 "State Vs. Anil Sharma", whereby the revisionist has been convicted under Section 354 of IPC, and has been sentenced to undergo one year of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) under Section 354 of IPC, with default stipulation. Against the order dated 20.10.2014, the revisionist filed an appeal before the IInd Additional Session Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2014, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2015. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 26.04.2011 at about 12 PM when complainant (name withheld) PW1 went for her eye treatment in the cabin of Doctor at the "Mela Hospital", the accused/revisionist was sitting there. Thereafter the accused/revisionist has started the checkup of her eyes and by seeing the glasses of the complainant, the accused/revisionist said that both the glasses are defective. Complainant said that change of her glasses and during this period the accused/revisionist started pornographic acts with the complainant. When the complainant reported this incident to the Doctor Khan, Doctor Khan said that the accused/revisionist is not a Doctor but he is only a technician sitting with Eye Doctor. From this incident, the complainant is in mental agony. Thereafter, the complainant has given the written information to the concerned Police Station. On this basis of the written information, the Case Crime No.153 of 2011 under Section 354 of IPC has been registered against the revisionist/accused and after investigation the chargesheet has been filed against Anil Sharma/revisionist before the court concerned. 3. On denial of guilt, the prosecution got orally examined as many as four witnesses. The P.W.1 (name withheld) (complainant), P.W.2 S.I. Gajendra Singh, P.W.3 Constable Soorveer Singh and P.W.4 Dr S.N. Khan PW 4. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused/revisionist, as above. Feeling aggrieved, accused/revisionist Anil Sharma has preferred the appeal before the IInd Additional Session Judge, Haridwar, which too has been dismissed. Hence the present criminal revision before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the accused/revisionist would confine his argument qua the quantum of sentence only. Feeling aggrieved, accused/revisionist Anil Sharma has preferred the appeal before the IInd Additional Session Judge, Haridwar, which too has been dismissed. Hence the present criminal revision before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the accused/revisionist would confine his argument qua the quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the F.I.R. was registered on 03.05.2011 and since then, the revisionist is consistently facing mental agony about the pendency of the criminal case against him. There is no other criminal case pending against him. He has further contended that the sentence awarded to the revisionist/accused may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 354 of IPC against the accused/revisionist. The trial court has rightly convicted him under the aforesaid section. However, on the point of sentence, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the incident is of the year 2011 and since then 9 years have been elapsed, and now sending the revisionist to jail would cause great hardship to him. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence as well as in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh (supra), the criminal revision is disposed of by affirming the conviction of the accused/revisionist recorded by the trial court under aforesaid section, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to Court concerned for onward compliance. 9. Lower court record, be also sent back to the court concerned.