Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 231 (UTT)

Veeru Koli v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-04-03

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:- (i) Judgment and order dated 28.11.2019, passed in Criminal Case No.6042 of 2014, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Veeru Koli, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/4th Additional Civil Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 323 and 354D IPC, and sentenced as follows:- (a) Under Section 354D IPC to undergo 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 months’ additional simple imprisonment. (b) Under Section 323 IPC to undergo 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo 1 month’s additional simple imprisonment. (ii) Judgment and order dated 14.09.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.412 of 2019, Veeru Koli Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in the case has been affirmed. 2. On 18.03.2024, instant revision has been admitted to the limited extent of examining the correctness of the sentence imposed on the revisionist. The lower court record has also been received. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 04.11.2014, when the victim was returning from her work place when she was followed by the applicant. He made obscene gestures and tried to molest the victim and when the victim resisted to it, he abused the victim. It is further the prosecution case that when the husband of the victim reached at the place, the revisionist further abused them and hit them with his car. Based on this FIR, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist and on 05.04.2016, charges under Section 354D, 323 and 504 of IPC was framed against. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, namely, PW1 the victim herself, PW2 the husband of the victim, PW3 Madhu Bora (in fact, she has not supported the prosecution case), PW4 Harish Gautam (he was declared hostile) and PW5 SI Siraj Ahmed, the Investigating Officer. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied the prosecution case and stated that he has falsely been implicated. 5. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied the prosecution case and stated that he has falsely been implicated. 5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. It must be noted here that the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Section 504 IPC. The judgment and order passed in the case has been upheld in the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the revisionist may be released on probation. 8. Learned State Counsel would submit that the revisionist has already been in custody in the case for three months and seven days. 9. After recording conviction in the criminal case, one of the toughest tasks is to impose an adequate sentence. There are less guidelines, which may assist the Court to reach proper and adequate sentence. Various factors are taken into custody, which includes the gravity of offence, the nature of offence, the manner in which the offence was done, the gravity of it, the position of the offender, the victim and the attending circumstances. 10. In the instant case, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 354D IPC for stalking. This section reads as follows:- “354D. Stalking.—(1) Any man who— (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking: Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that— (i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or (ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or (iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified. (2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. In addition to it, the revisionist has also been convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries to the victim and her husband. It is not the prosecution case that the revisionist followed on multiple occasions the victim. It is one incident of 04.11.2014. It has not been brought to the notice of the Court by the prosecution that on any subsequent occasion also such an act was ever committed by the revisionist. 12. In view of it, having considered the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be better served, if the period of sentence is modified as below:- (i) Under Section 354D IPC four months rigorous imprisonment. The fine remaining unaltered. (ii) Under Section 323 IPC, one month rigorous imprisonment. The fine remaining unaltered. 13. Accordingly, the sentence is modified as follows:- (i) Under Section 354D, four months rigorous imprisonment. The fine remaining unaltered. (ii) Under Section 323 IPC, one month rigorous imprisonment. The fine remaining unaltered. (iii) Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 14. The impugned judgments and orders are modified accordingly. 15. The revision is decided accordingly.