Uttarakhand High Court
Prem Pal And Another ..... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.223 of 2021
Prem Pal and another ..... Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Vipul
Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Kuldeep Rawal, learned AGA along with Ms. Sonika Khulbe,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2020,
passed by learned FTC/ADJ/Special Judge (POCSO),
District Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial
No.96 of 2015 "State vs. Prempal and others", whereby
the appellants-have been convicted by the Trial Court for
the offence punishable under section 304(Part II) read
with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with
fine of Rs. 20,000/-, with default stipulation; they were
further convicted u/s 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo one year's R.I. The appellant-Prem Pal was
further convicted u/s 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo
three years' R.I. along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with
default stipulation; he was further convicted u/s 8 of
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I.
with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that a written
information was given by the informant with Police
Station, Kichha on 31.12.2014 with the allegations that
on 31.12.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., present appellants
along with other accused entered into the house of the
informant and caused injuries to his son; the injured was
then was rushed to the hospital for treatment where he
was declared brought dead. On the basis of said
information, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Kichha;
during investigation, site-plan Ex.A13 was prepared; and
post-mortem was accordingly conducted. After complying
with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges were
framed against the appellants. The appellants denied the
same and claimed for trial.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined
P.W.1 informant, P.W.2 Murari Lal, P.W.3 Bhagwan Dass,
P.W.4 Smt. Savitri, P.W.5 Jai Singh, P.W.6 injured, PW.7
minor victim, P.W.8 mother of deceased, P.W.9 Noni Ram
(Principal), P.W.10 Dr. D.P Singh, P.W.11 Sompal, P.W.12
victim's brother, P.W.13 Urmila Devi, PW.14 S.I. Manoj
Kumar Kothari, P.W. 15 S. Umesh Ram Arya, P.W. 16
Retd. Inspector B.L. Verma, P.W. 17 Head Constable
Rajiv Kumar and P.W.18 Dr. H.S. Pandey.
4. After completion of prosecution evidence, the
statements of the accused-appellants under section 313
Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they denied all the
allegations and submitted that false evidence has been
produced against them by the prosecution. They further
submitted that they were not present at the spot.
5. The trial court, having heard learned counsel
for the parties and after perusal of the material available
on record, concluded that prosecution has been
successful in establishing the guilt of the accused-
appellants beyond reasonable doubt and held them guilty
for the aforesaid offences and, accordingly, sentenced
them, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and
sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this
Court.
7. Heard the learned senior counsel for the
appellants as well as learned counsel for the State.
8. It is submitted by learned Sr. Counsel for the
appellants that the trial court has convicted the accused
on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution;
there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings
regarding conviction; he further submits that the co-
accused-Mool Chand had preferred CRLA No.357 of
2020, 'Mool Chand vs. State of Uttarakhand', which was
partly allowed by this Court on 08.03.2021 after hearing
the parties; he further submits that both the appellants
have already served more than six years in jail; they are
the sole bread earners of their family; there was no
intention of the appellants to kill the deceased; no
minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 304 (Part-
II) IPC; in such circumstances, learned senior counsel
would submit that a lenient view may be taken to reduce
the sentence of appellants to the extent of already
undergone by them.
9. I have also gone through the record and found
that in the present matter, the prosecution has proved
the case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no illegality
or perversity in the impugned findings. So far as sentence
awarded to appellants is concerned, since the co-
accused/appellant Mool Chand has already been
awarded 6 years' R.I. instead of 10 years, therefore, six
years' R.I. is sufficient instead of ten years' R.I. as
awarded by the trial court under Section 304 (II)/34 IPC
against the present appellants also.
10. As regards the fine is concerned, the trial Court
has awarded fine of Rs.20,000/- against the appellants
under Section 304 (II) read with Section 34 IPC, which is
on higher side, and this Court is of the view that
Rs.15,000/- fine would be sufficient instead of
Rs.20,000/- under Section 304 (II) read with Section 34
IPC. As far as sentences awarded by the trial Court under
Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 IPC as also u/s 8
of POCSO Act is concerned, there is no illegality in the
impugned findings regarding the appellant-Prem Pal. As
regard to the sentence against appellant Bhoop Ram, as
awarded by the trial court u/s 323 read with Section 34
IPC is concerned, there is no illegality in the impugned
findings.
11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is
allowed in part. The appellants are sentenced as follows:
A. The appellant-Prem Pal is sentenced to
undergo six years' rigorous imprisonment under
section 304(Part II) read with Section 34 IPC instead
of ten years' R.I. as awarded by the trial court. He
will pay Rs.15,000/- as fine instead of Rs.20,000/-
as awarded by the trial court.
B. The sentence and fine awarded to appellant-
Prem Pal under Sections 452, 323/34 of IPC and
u/s 8 of POCSO Act will remain intact.
C. The appellant-Bhup Ram is sentenced to
undergo six years' rigorous imprisonment under
section 304(Part II) read with Section 34 IPC, instead
of ten years' R.I. as awarded by the trial court. He
will pay Rs.15,000/- as fine instead of Rs.20,000/-
as awarded by the trial court.
D. The sentence awarded to appellant-Bhup Ram
under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC will
remain intact.
E. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
F. On completion of period of sentence, as
modified by this Court, appellants shall be released
from jail as per law and after due verification of
records.
12. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith records
be sent back to the court concerned. The Registry is
directed to send a copy of this judgment to the jail
authority also for compliance.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
12.07.2021
Balwant
