Uttarakhand High Court
Deepak Singh @ Deepu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Jail Appeal No.10 of 2018
Deepak Singh @ Deepu ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Mr. Rajendra Arya, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.A.G. along with Mr. Rohit
Dhyani, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
The present jail appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2016 passed
by the Addl. Sessions Judge Kotdwar, in S.T. No.25 of
2015, State vs. Deepak Singh @ Deepu, whereby the
learned Trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 457 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo three years' R.I. with fine
of Rs.2,000 with default stipulation; he was also
convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten
years' R.I. with fine of Rs.23,000/-; in default stipulation.
All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.
2. In short, case of the prosecution is that PW-1
Mahindra Singh submitted an information Ex. Ka-1 with
the Police Station, Dhumakot, Pauri Garhwal on
14.06.2015 about the incident. On the basis of said
information, a Chick FIR Ex.Ka-3 was lodged with the
police station on the very same day; accordingly, G.D.
Ex.Ka-4 was prepared; the injured PW-2 Ankita was
medically examined by attending Doctor; accordingly,
medical report Ex.Ka-2 was prepared; during the
investigation a weapon was recovered from the
possession of the accused; accordingly, recovery memo
Ex.Ka-5 was prepared. After investigation, charge-sheet
(Ex.Ka-16) was submitted. Accordingly, after compliance
of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was
committed to the court of sessions. The Sessions Judge
took the cognizance and accordingly charges were framed
under Sections 457, 307, 506 IPC on 29.09.2015. The
appellant denied all the allegations and claimed to be
tried.
3. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the
prosecution produced PW1- Mahinder Singh (informant),
PW2 Ankita (injured), PW3 Rameshwari Devi, PW4 Dr.
Tanveer, who prepared the medical report Ex. Ka 2, PW5
Dinesh Singh Panwar, PW6 Vijera Singh, PW7 Ramlal,
PW8 Himashu Sexena, PW9 N.K. Bachkoti.
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 the
prosecution produced false evidences against him.
However, no evidence was produced in defence.
5. Upon consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence, by order dated 04.06.2016, the
trial court convicted the appellant for the offences
punishable u/s 457 and 307 IPC, and sentenced him 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 counsel for the appellant as
well as learned counsel for the State.
8. It is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae 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 2015; 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
five 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 the appellant was arrested on
15.06.2015 and the appellant has already served more
than five 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
2015; 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 nature 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 the period has already
undergone u/s 307 IPC; as regard to the offence u/s 457
IPC is concerned, there is no illegality in the impugned
sentence.
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 five years R.I.
u/s 307 IPC instead of ten years' imprisonment as
awarded by the trial court.
B. The conviction under Section 457 IPC will
remain intact, as awarded by the trial court.
C. The fine awarded by the trial court under
Section 307 IPC will remain intact; however, the
appellant will serve additional imprisonment for a
period of three months in default of payment of fine
instead of one year.
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.)
24.05.2021
BS
