Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/357/2020 on 8 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
ON THE 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2020
BETWEEN:
Mool Chand .....Appellant
(Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
(Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for State/respondent)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 18.09.2020, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC/Special
Judge (POCSO), District Udham Singh Nagar in
Special Session Trial No. 96 of 2015 "State vs.
Prempal and others", whereby the appellant-Mool
Chand has been convicted for the offence
punishable under section 304 (II) read with section
34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs.
20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was
directed to undergo two months' additional simple
imprisonment.
3. In brief, facts of the case are that, the written
information was given with the Police Station Kichha
on 31.12.2014 by the informant with the allegation
that on 31.12.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., the present
appellant along with other accused entered into the
house of the informant and caused injuries to the
son of the informant; the injured sustained injuries;
thereafter, he was rushed to hospital for treatment
where he was declared brought dead. On the basis
of the said information, an FIR was lodged at Police
Station Kichha; during investigation, site-plan Ex.
A13 was prepared and post-mortem was conducted.
After complying with the provisions of section 207
Cr.P.C., charges were framed against the appellant.
The appellant denied the same and claimed for trial.
4. 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.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the
statement of the accused-appellant under section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied all the
allegations and submitted that false evidence has
been produced against him by the prosecution. He
further submitted that he was not present at the
spot.
6. 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 appellant beyond reasonable doubt and
held him guilty for the offence punishable under
section 304 (II) read with section 34 IPC and
sentenced him, accordingly, as mentioned in para 1.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly
admitted 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
order impugned, but he fairly submits that in the
present matter, the accused has already served
more than 5 years and 11 months in jail, and he is
the sole male member in his family. He further
submits that it was not the intention of the
appellant to kill the deceased. He further submits
that no minimum sentence is prescribed under
section 304 (II) IPC. The maximum punishment
awarded to the accused is 10 years against which
the accused has already served more than 5 years
and 11 months. In such circumstances, learned
counsel would submit that a lenient view may be
taken to reduce his sentence.
8. 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 judgment of the
court below. So far as sentence awarded to
appellant is concerned, this Court is of the view that
since, the accused is in jail for last 5 years and 11
months, accordingly, six years imprisonment would
meet the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The
conviction of the appellant under section 304 (II)
read with section 34 IPC is maintained. However,
the appellant is awarded six years rigorous
imprisonment instead of ten years along with fine of
Rs. 15,000/-. The appellant will be entitled to seek
adjustment of the fine already deposited by him, if
any. In case of failure to deposit the fine as
directed above, the sentence recorded by the court
below shall stand revived.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court
below for compliance.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
Parul 08.03.2021
