Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 246 (UTT)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-04-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The instant revision is preferred against the following:- (A) Judgment and order dated 04.06.2019, passed in Criminal Case No.377 of 2017, State Vs. Manoj Kumar, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, but he has been convicted for the offences under Section 325 IPC, and sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-. It has further been stipulated that in default of payment of fine, the revision shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. And; (B) Judgment and order dated 12.12.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No.191 of 2019, Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Second Additonal Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 04.06.2019, passed in the case has been upheld. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This revision has yet not been admitted. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the quantum of sentence may be revisited and its legality, correctness and propriety may be examined. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, the revision is being heard and finally decided at the stage of admission itself. 4. According to the prosecution case, the PW1, Omprakash Singh, the informant, was the Village Pradhan at the relevant time. On 25.09.2016, he was inspecting a road under construction when suddenly, according to the FIR, at 11:30 AM, the revisionist appeared there and started attacking the informant with kicks fists and punch. Somehow the informant was saved. The FIR was lodged. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC against the revisionist, which is the basis of the case. 5. On 05.08.2017, charge under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC were framed against the revisionist, to which he denied and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Omprakash Singh, PW2, Kamal Singh, PW3 Harish Kumar, PW4 Sompal, PW5 SI Rewati Nandan, PW6 Dr. Dhirendra Mohan, and PW7 SI Madan Singh Bisht. 7. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he is innocent and has been wrongly implicated. 8. Dhirendra Mohan, and PW7 SI Madan Singh Bisht. 7. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he is innocent and has been wrongly implicated. 8. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist unsuccessfully preferred the appeal. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the revisionist has been in custody for more than 18 months now; he is not a previous convict; he should now be released for the period of custody, which he has already undergone in the case. 10. Learned State Counsel would submit that the revisionist has already undergone 1 Year 8 months and 12 days custody in the case; he is not a previous convict. 11. PW1, Omprakash Singh, is the informant of the case. In his evidence, according to him, on 25.09.2016, when he was inspecting an under-construction road, he was attacked by the revisionist, due to which he sustained some injuries. He was saved by some witnesses. 12. PW2, Kamal Singh, and PW3, Harish Kumar, have supported the prosecution case. 13. PW4, Sompal, has also stated that on the date of incident, he had seen the informant below a motorcycle, and the neighbourer had saved PW1, Omprakash Singh, from the revisionist. 14. PW5, S.I. Rewati Nandan is the Investigating Officer. 15. PW6, Dr. Dhirendra Mohan, has proved the injury report. According to him, the third rib of PW1, Omprakash Singh, had a fracture, which was grievous. 16. PW7, S.I. Madan Singh Bisht, has also proved certain documents. 17. The trial court has considered the evidence quite in detail and has also considered the arguments and convicted the revisionist under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him. As stated, it has been confirmed in appeal. 18. What is being argued is that the revisionist deserves his release and the sentence may be restricted to the period, which he has already undergone in the case. 19. After finding of guilt is recorded, one of the important tasks for the criminal court is to ascertain an adequate sentence. Sentencing is such an act, which requires consideration of various factors including the nature of offence, the circumstances under which it is done, the offender, the victim, their relationship and other attending circumstances. 20. 19. After finding of guilt is recorded, one of the important tasks for the criminal court is to ascertain an adequate sentence. Sentencing is such an act, which requires consideration of various factors including the nature of offence, the circumstances under which it is done, the offender, the victim, their relationship and other attending circumstances. 20. In the instant case, admittedly, PW1, Omprakash, the informant, was a Village Pradhan, who, according to the prosecution, was supervising the construction work when he was attacked. In his cross-examination, PW1, Omprakash, has stated that the revisionist had filed a criminal case against the son of PW1, Omprakash. He has also admitted that prior to this FIR, the revisionist had filed a case against PW1, Omprakash and his son, in which they were on bail. PW1, Omprakash, has also admitted that the revisionist had obtained various information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from him, with regard to the work, that was conducted by the Village Gram Sabha. 21. Parties had enmity between them. The revisionist was seeking information with regard to the work done by the Village Pradhan. Two years’ simple imprisonment has been awarded to the revisionist under Section 325 IPC. 22. The genesis of the offence may be seen. According to the FIR, when the revisionist reached at the spot, he pushed PW1, Omprakash Singh, from his motorcycle, due to which he fell done. PW4, Sompal, has stated that he had seen PW1, Omprakash, below the motorcycle. The injury report is Ex.-A3. There was no external injury on the chest. Complaint of pain was reported and, subsequently, a fracture was found. The attack was made by fists and kicks. 23. Having considered all these factors, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the revisionist is sentenced under Section 325 IPC to the period of custody, which he has already undergone in the case. 24. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. 25. The conviction of the revisionist under Section 325 IPC is upheld. 26. The sentence of the revisionist under Section 325 IPC is restricted to the period of custody, which he has already undergone in the case. The amount of fine shall remain unaltered. 27. The impugned judgments and orders are modified in terms of sentence, as indicated hereinabove.