Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 276 (UTT)

Rajendra Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-04-26

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. Both the Criminal Appeals have been filed against a common judgment dated 22.05.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Special Sessions Trial No.02 of 2007, “State vs. Rajendra Singh Rana and Smt. Nirmala Bisht”, by which, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC, and, they have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC with default imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. These Criminal Appeals are connected appeals, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2008 will be treated as a leading case. 3. According to the prosecution, the informant Smt. Chandrakanti (PW4) was a member of Scheduled Caste. On 10.06.2006, at about 10:00 a.m., an unknown man and an unknown woman came to informant’s house. They assaulted her and her husband and abused them using casteist slurs. First Information Report (Ext. Ka1) was lodged by Smt. Chandrakanti/victim through her written information (Ext. Ka4). Charge-sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, “Act, 1989”). 4. Charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act, 1989, Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were framed. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. 6. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 7. Appellants – accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence. 8. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. 6. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 7. Appellants – accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence. 8. Learned Trial Court heard the arguments, appreciated the evidence and passed the judgment dated 22.05.2008, by which, the appellants have been acquitted of the charge of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 and of the charge of Section 506 IPC. While, appellants – accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 452 and 504 IPC. 9. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants appealed before this Court. 10. Heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 11. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the appellants do not want to press their conviction order. Appellants want to advance their arguments only on their sentence, passed by learned Trial Court. 12. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the First Information Report was lodged on 10.06.2006, charges were framed on 24.07.2007 and the present appeals are pending since the year, 2008. He further submitted that the appellants have no criminal history. 13. After advancing the said submissions, learned Senior Advocate requested to alter the sentence and grant benefit of probation to the appellants under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 14. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, supported the judgment of conviction and sentence. 15. First Information Report was lodged on 10.06.2006. Present Appeal is pending since the year, 2008. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellants had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity. 16. Having regard the facts and circumstances of this case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate that the sentence, passed by learned Trial Court, should be altered and benefit of probation should be granted to the appellants. 17. Consequently, without altering the findings of Trial Court, the nature of sentence is being altered. 16. Having regard the facts and circumstances of this case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate that the sentence, passed by learned Trial Court, should be altered and benefit of probation should be granted to the appellants. 17. Consequently, without altering the findings of Trial Court, the nature of sentence is being altered. Resultantly, the appellants, namely, Rajendra Singh Rana, aged about 51 years, and, Smt. Nirmala Bisht, aged about 58 years, are released on probation of good conduct for one year, on their entering into a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one reliable surety of the like amount by each to appear and receive sentence when they called upon during such period. In the meanwhile, the appellants are directed to keep the peace and be of good behavior. 18. Appellants are directed to appear before the Probation Officer, Tehri Garhwal on or before 15.05.2023. 19. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order forthwith to the Probation Officer, Tehri Garhwal, for necessary action. 20. These two Appeals are disposed of accordingly. 21. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected Appeal.