Uttarakhand High Court
Heera Singh And Another ......... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 97 of 2009
Heera Singh and another ......... Revisionists
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .......Respondent
Present:
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the revisionists.
Mr. Lalit Migani AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Challenge in this revision is to the judgment and order dated
02.06.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2007, Heera Singh and
others vs. State, (for short "the appeal") by the Court of learned District and
Sessions Judge, Champawat. By the impugned judgment and order, the
conviction of the revisionists for the offence under Section 379 of IPC as
recorded in Criminal Case No. 13 of 2005, State vs. Heera Singh and others
by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat ("the case") on
18.01.2007, was affirmed. But, the sentence was reduced from rigorous
imprisonment of two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year, and the
fine remained the same as Rs. 200/- on each of the revisionists.
2. The case was based on an F.I.R No. 274 of 2004 recorded under
Section 379 IPC, at Police Station Tanakpur, District Champawat.
According to the F.I.R on 03.12.2004 when police party was on patrolling
duty, they spotted three persons carrying rebars on pedal-rickshaw. Those
persons were apprehended by the police. Two of them are the revisionists, one
was a Pappu. They admitted that they had stolen the rebars from government
hospital premises. On this F.I.R, the investigation was carried out, charge
sheet submitted and after the trial, the revisionist and co-convict Pappu were
convicted in the case on 18.01.2007. It was challenged in the appeal. In appeal
as stated, while maintaining the conviction of the revisionists under Section
379 IPC, the sentenced of rigorous imprisonment was reduced from two years
to one year while maintaining the fine of Rs.200 on each of the revisionists. It
may be stated that the appeal was preferred by the revisionists as well as by
the co-convict Pappu.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists restricts his argument to the
quantum of sentence. He would submit that the revisionists are much poor;
they are labourers; they have already undergone about two and a half months
imprisonment; they have also deposited the fine, which was imposed. Learned
counsel for the revisionists would also submit that no purpose would be
served if now the revisionists are again send to jail.
5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that conviction does
not require any interference.
6. The revisionists and co-convict were apprehended while carrying
rebars on a pedal-rickshaw. The total weight of the rebars was about 2
quintals, as mentioned in the F.I.R itself.
7. Undoubtedly, the scope of criminal revision is much restricted to
the extent of examining, the legality, propriety and correctness of the
judgment.
8. Having considered the arguments, under the facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any
interference, so far as the conviction of the revisionists under Section 379 IPC
is concerned. However, so far as, the quantum of sentence is concerned,
keeping in view, the nature of the offence, the gravity of the offence and the
offenders, this Court is of the view that the revisionists may be sentenced to
the period of imprisonment, which they have already undergone in this case
and accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed in part.
9. The revision is partly allowed.
10. The conviction of the revisionists, as recorded by the impugned
judgment, is upheld. But, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the
period of imprisonment, which the revisionists have already undergone in the
instant case.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
10.03.2021
Nahid
