Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 342 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Sukhdeo Singh

2024-05-15

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. A perusal of the judgment dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2007 shows that when the record was presented, accused-Sukhdev Singh @ Ladi, Mukhtyar Singh @ Mukhi @ Ladi, Rajendra Singh @ Raju, Mahendra Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Ranjit Singh and Kuljeet Singh @ Kuljinder Singh were present in custody. An Application was made by the accused for confession of the offences keeping in view that they have been in jail for the last five years and are extremely poor and there was no one to advocate for them. They made a prayer that they should be sentenced with the period already spent in jail by them. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the confession made, convicted the accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 364A and 3017 read with Sections 149, 328, 342, 368, & 120B IPC. Accused Kuljeet Singh & Kuljinder Singh also submitted an Application for confession of offence under Section 25 Arms Act and on the basis of the confession, accused-Kuljeet Singh @ Kuljinder Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The State has come up in appeal for enhancement of the conviction. 3. A perusal of the judgment dated 23rd September, 2011 further shows that all the accused have confessed their guilt and no record was examined by the Court before imposing the punishment of conviction. 4. In this matter, the judgment was pronounced in 2011 and after 13 years, for enhancement of the conviction, there is no question of examining the entire record, which was never examined by the lower Court. Moreover, the lower Court has examined that the accused had been detained in jail for a period of about four and a half to five years, they did not have any advocate also and the trial was pending since 2007. Moreover, the lower Court has examined that the accused had been detained in jail for a period of about four and a half to five years, they did not have any advocate also and the trial was pending since 2007. The accused were convicted and sentenced as under: “Accused persons Sukhdev Singh @ Ladi, Mukhtyar Singh @ Mukhi @ Ladi, Rajendra Singh @ Raju, Mahendra Sing, Gurmeet Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Kuljeet Singh @ Kuljinder Singh were sentenced to one year simple imprisonment on charges of Section 147 IPC, 2 years simple imprisonment on charges of Section 148 IPC, sentence of four and a half years simple imprisonment on charges of Section 364A IPC, sentence of four years simple imprisonment on charges of Section 307/149 IPC, sentence of four years simple imprisonment on the charge of Section 328 IPC, sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment on the charge of Section 342 IPC, sentence of two years simple imprisonment on the charge of Section 368 IPC and they are sentenced with two years of simple imprisonment under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Kuljeet Singh @ Kuljinder Singh is sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment on the charge of Section 25 Arms Act. All the sentences of the accused shall run concurrently. The period spent by the accused persons in jail should be adjusted in this sentence.” 5. As far as the Appeal filed by the State against the conviction of respondent Nos. 1 & 3 is concerned, the same has already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2nd April, 2013 holding that it was not possible for the appellant to effect service upon respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Hence, the Appeal is now confined only to respondent Nos. 2 (Mukhtyar Singh @ Mukhi), respondent No. 4 (Mahendra Singh), respondent No. 5 (Gurmeet Singh), respondent No. 6 (Ranjeet Singh) and respondent No. 7 (Kuljeet Singh). The Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2012) filed by one of the accused-Gurmit Singh @ Master has already been allowed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 12th March, 2024, whereby he has already been acquitted of the charges under Sections 364-A and 120B of IPC. 6. In view of the above, no case is made out to set aside the order dated 23rd September, 2011. 6. In view of the above, no case is made out to set aside the order dated 23rd September, 2011. Once the Court has accepted the confession of the accused and the accused have been in custody for about four and a half to five years, the judgment of conviction dated 23rd September, 2011 does not require any interference in the Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal as against respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 is also dismissed. 7. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision, which has also been filed for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused, is also dismissed.