Gulab vs State Of Uttarakhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1701 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

          Criminal Jail Appeal No.34 of 2020

Gulab                                       ..... Appellant

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand                      ....Respondent


Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. along with Ms. Shivangi
Gangwar, learned Brief Holder for the State.


Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

The present jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar in S.S.T. No.265 of 2012, State vs. Gulab, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years' imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/- along with default stipulation; he was also convicted u/s 504 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months' imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default stipulation; the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. In short, case of the prosecution is that the informant PW1 Priya submitted an information Ex. Ka-1 with the Police Station, Pathri, District Haridwar on 26.07.2012. On the basis of said information, a chick FIR Ex.Ka-8 was lodged with the police station; on the very same day, at 19:30 hours the accused was arrested, accordingly, arresting memo Ex.Ka-4 was prepared; the Investigating Officer prepared the site map Ex.Ka-6 and recorded the statements of witnesses; on completion of investigation, charge sheet Ex.Ka-7 was submitted on 02.08.2012; and Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance. Accordingly, after compliance of provision of Sections 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

The charges were framed on 07.11.2012 u/s 307, 504 IPC. The appellant denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution produced PW1-informant, PW2 Shyam Singh, PW3 Rajaram, PW4 Dr. Rajeev Kumar, who prepared medical report of the injured, which is Ex.Ka-2, PW5 S.I. Praveen Singh and PW6 S.I. Jagdish Singh, who recorded statements of the witnesses and submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka-7.

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidences and stated that prosecution produced false evidences against him. However, no evidence was produced in defence.

5. After hearing both the parties, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the judgment.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

7. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he does not want to argue the case on merits as the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on sufficient material on record; he fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2012; there is no criminal antecedent against him; the trial Court convicted and sentenced him ten years' imprisonment against which the appellant has already served more than three years, hence the Court may kindly consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the State also submits that there is no minimum sentence prescribed and the appellant has already served three and half years in jail, which is sufficient and the sentence can be reduced to the extent of period already undergone.

10. I have also gone through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and come to this conclusion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant based on proper evidence and there is no infirmity in the impugned findings. Since the matter relates to the year 2012; the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent in his past life, and he is not required in any other criminal case except the one at hand. Accordingly, looking to the gravity of the offence, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the sentence of the appellant from 10 years to the extent of three years and six months (42 months) u/s 307 IPC.

11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is sentenced as follows: -

A. The appellant is sentenced to undergo three years and six months' (42 months') imprisonment u/s 307 IPC instead of ten years' imprisonment as awarded by the trial court.

B. The conviction under Section 504 IPC will remain intact, as awarded by the trial court. C. The fine awarded under each section is also maintained, and he shall deposit the fine as imposed by the trial court. However, in default of payment of fine he will serve one month's additional simple imprisonment in both the offences.

D. All the sentences shall run concurrently. E. On completion of period of sentence, as modified by this Court, he 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 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.) 20.05.2021 Sukhbant