CRLA/232/2016
2022 Latest Caselaw 293 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL


       SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE


                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 232 OF 2016

                            18th FEBRUARY, 2022


 Between:

 Mahavir Singh                               ......        Appellant

 and

 State of Uttarakhand                        ......        Respondent


Counsel for the appellant         :   None present for the appellant


Counsel for respondent            :   Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
                                      Advocate General for the State



 Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made
 the following


 JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate

General for the State. None appears for the appellant.

2. None appears on behalf of the appellant on

28.02.2017 and on 31.12.2021. On 31.12.2021, this

Court called for a report whether the prisoner is still in

custody or has been released after serving his sentence?

It is apparent from the letter received from the Senior

Superintendent, District Jail, Haridwar and the In-charge

Superintendent, District Jail, Chamoli that the appellant

has been released on 26.10.2019 after serving his

sentence.

3. Though such release after serving the

sentence does not make a criminal appeal infructuous, it

is noted that the appellant is not appearing in the Court

either personally or through his counsel. It appears that

the appellant is no more interested to prosecute the

criminal appeal.

4. This Court carefully examined the impugned

judgment and the evidences available on record. The

appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short 'IPC'), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six years along with a fine

of Rs. 20,000/-. He has been further convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three

years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

5. There are no direct evidences in this case.

The prosecution relied upon the dying declaration,

recorded by the Investigating Officer, in the presence of

the doctor, who has certified the dying declaration.

6. Having carefully examined the record and on

hearing Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate

General for the State, this Court is of the opinion that

there is no scope of interference by this Appellate Court

to set aside the conviction recorded under Section 304

Part II of IPC and Section 498A of IPC, and the

sentences imposed thereunder. Hence, this Court is of

the opinion that there is no merit in the present criminal

appeal. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra) Acting Chief Justice

Dt: 18th FEBRUARY, 2022 Negi