Uttarakhand High Court
Ravindra @ Jugga vs State Of Uttarakhand on 26 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2014
Ravindra @ Jugga ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
The present appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.214 of
2013, State vs. Ravindra @ Gugga, whereby the Court
below has convicted the appellant under Section 323
IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year's simple
imprisonment and convicted the appellant under
Section 376 (2)(Jh) IPC and sentenced him to undergo
10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.25,000/-, and in case of default of fine, he was
directed to undergo one year's additional rigorous
imprisonment. He was further convicted under Section
5(rh)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 10
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-,
and in default, he was directed to undergo one year's
additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are
that the informant Mukesh had given written
information with Kotwali, Roorkee, Haridwar Ex. Ka-1
with the allegations that his daughter is aged about
eight years; she was studying in L.K.G.; on 23.04.2013
when the informant was doing labour work and his wife
went in the agricultural field, the accused /appellant
took his daughter and committed rape on her. On the
basis of the said information a Chick FIR Ex.Ka-7 was
lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee against the
accused/appellant; medical report was prepared, which
is Ex.Ka-5.
3. After investigation charge sheet Ex. Ka-13
was submitted, accordingly, charges were framed, to
which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the prosecution story, PW-1
Mukesh, PW-2 Smt. Sunita, PW-3 prosecutrix, PW-4
S.I. Pratap Singh, PW-5 Dr. Deepa, PW-6 Suresh, PW-7
Constable Dinesh Gaur, PW-8 Sukhvir Singh, PW-9 S.I.
Pramilla Bisht and PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta, were
examined as prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the
statement of appellant-accused was recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In defence, DW-1 Jai Prakash
and DW-2 Baleshwar were produced.
5. The trial court, having perused the entire
material made available on record, vide judgment and
order under appeal, convicted and sentenced the
appellant, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved,
appellant has preferred present appeal.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the
appellant that he does not want to argue the case on
merit and the accused has also submitted an
application through jailer that he has been convicted by
the trial court and prayed that all the sentences may be
directed to run concurrently.
7. Heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the entire material available on the
record
8. I have gone through the record and found
that in the present matter the prosecution has produced
all the material evidence before the trial court; there is
sufficient evidence on record against the appellant to
convict him under the above offences; there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed
by the trial court. The appellant has been convicted
rightly based on the material on record.
9. As regard to the sentence is concerned
Section 31 (1) of Cr.P.C. reads as under: -
"Sentence in cases of conviction of several
offences at one trial.(1) When a person is
convicted at one trial of two or more offences,
the Court may, subject to the provisions of
section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), sentence him for such offences, to the
several punishments prescribed therefor
which such Court is competent to inflict;
such punishments when consisting of
imprisonment to commence the one after the
expiration of the other in such order as the
Court may direct, unless the Court directs
that such punishments shall run
concurrently.
10. When an accused is convicted in one case
under different counts of offences and sentenced
different terms of imprisonment under each such count,
all such sentences should be directed to run
concurrently.
11. From the perusal of the operative portion of
the impugned judgment, it is clear that the trial court
has failed to observe that all the sentences will run
concurrently. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed
with the following observations: -
A. The conviction as awarded by the trial court
will remain intact.
B. All the sentences as awarded by the trial
court will run concurrently.
C. The fine as awarded by the trial court will
remain intact.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the
concerned jail authority for compliance.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
26.03.2021
BS
