Uttarakhand High Court
Harbhajan Singh @ Kala vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2016
Harbhajan Singh @ Kala ............... Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand ... Respondent
Dated: 09.04.2021
Mr. Deep Chadra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, learned B.H. for the Sate.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Heard.
Admit.
This criminal appeal, preferred by the appellant
u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to
be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and
order dated 11.09.2013 passed by learned IInd Additional
Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Sing Nagar in Session
Trial No.132 of 2008, Ranjeet Singh @ Sonu Vs. State of
Uttarakhand whereby the learned trial Court convicted the
appellant Harbhajan Singh @ Kala and sentenced to
undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.1000/- u/s 395 IPC; and 7 years rigorous imprisonment
with a fine of Rs.1,500/- u/s 397 IPC, to undergo 5 years
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- u/s 412
IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.05.2007
informant Arvind Garbiyal, Branch Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Gardarpur, District-Udham Singh Nagar
submitted an information Ex.Ka-1. On the basis of the said
information, Chick FIR Ex.Ka-10 was recorded with Police
Station, Rudrapur, accordingly, entry was made in the G.D.
which is Ex.Ka-11. After completion of the investigation,
charge sheet Ex.Ka-8 was submitted and after compliance
of provision of 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the
Sessions Judge.
3. The Trial Court took cognizance. Accordingly,
charges were framed, to which the accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the prosecution story, PW-1 Arvind
Garbiyal, PW2 Lalit Chandra Arya, PW3 Bala Singh Rana,
PW4 Smt. Chanchal Rani, PW5 Mohd. Umar, PW6 Mohd.
Naim, PW7 Sukhdev Singh, PW8 Sunil Kumar, PW9 Ajay
Kumar, PW10 Govind Ballabh, PW11 Uttam Singh, PW12
P.C. Dumka, PW13 Umed Singh Danu, PW14 Om Prakash
Sharma, PW15 Surender Singh, PW16 Harjinder Singh and
PW17 Rajwant Singh were examined as prosecution
witnesses.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence,
statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he has been falsely
implicated in the offence. In defence, no evidence either
documentary or oral was produced.
6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial
Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as
mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Aggrieved
by it, the present appeal has been preferred.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the entire evidence available on the record.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly argued
that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on
evidence and there is no illegality in the impugned finding;
and he also does not want to lay any challenge on the same
he only confined his prayer to the extent that the sentence
awarded to the appellant by the trial court may be reduced
to some extent; lastly, there is no provision of fine u/s 397
IPC.
9. I have also gone through the record and came to
this conclusion that the trial Court convicted the appellant
on the basis of the evidence. There is sufficient evidence
against the appellant and he was rightly convicted.
However, from the perusal of Section 397 IPC, it is clear
that there is no provision regarding imposition of fine while
the trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.1,500/- U/s 397 IPC.
10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal
preferred by the appellant is partly allowed with the
following directions: -
A. The conviction part of the appellant, as awarded by
the Trial Court is maintained.
B. The sentence awarded by the trial Court u/s 395, 397
and 412 IPC is maintained, however, the fine awarded u/s
397 IPC is set aside.
C. The appellant shall deposit the fine, as awarded u/s
395 and 412 IPC, which shall be a condition precedent for
his release.
D. All the sentences will run concurrently.
11. Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the
record of this case along with a copy of this judgment for
onwards compliance.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
09.04.2021
Sukhbant
