Uttarakhand High Court
Rahul Singh Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 278 of 2022
With
Bail Application (IA) No. 1 of 2022
Rahul Singh Rana ...... Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, Advocate for the Revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant revision is directed against the
following:
(i) Judgment and order dated 21.01.2020, in
Criminal Case No.636 of 2014, State Vs.
Rahul Singh Rana, passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, District- Udham Singh Nagar. By
the impugned order, the revisionist has been
convicted and sentenced for 3 years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and
in case of default in payment of fine, 3
months further imprisonment under Section
411 IPC, and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 19.05.2022, in
Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2020, Rahul Singh
Rana Vs. State, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham
Singh Nagar. By it, the conviction has been
upheld, but the sentence has been reduced
to a period of 2 years.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The revision was admitted on 10.06.2022,
on the quantum of sentence alone. On that date, the
Court passed the following order:
"The challenge in this revision is made to
judgment and order dated 21.01.2020, passed in
Criminal Case No. 636 of 2014, State Vs. Rahul
Singh Rana, by the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District-Udham
Singh Nagar, ("the case"). By the impugned
judgment and order, the revisionist has been
acquitted of the charge under Section 379 IPC. He
has been convicted of the charge under Section
411 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. It was
challenged by the revisionist in Criminal Appeal
No. 51 of 2020, Rahul Singh Rana Vs. State of
Uttarakhand ("the appeal"), before the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar. In appeal, the sentence has
been reduced from 3 years to 2 years.
Aggrieved by both judgment and order, the
revisionist is before this Court.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the applicant is a young boy of 30 years of
age, who is a farmer. He has no criminal history.
Therefore, the matter needs to be heard on the
quantum of sentence.
Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that he restricts his argument to the quantum of
sentence and the revisionist may be given benefit
of first offender.
In fact, the case is based on an FIR lodged by
informant Mohd. Yasim, according to which, on
05.04.2014, at 5:30 in the evening, the motorcycle
of the informant was stolen by some person. It is
the prosecution case that on 29.04.2014, the
revisionist was found riding the motorcycle. It was
recovered.
Initially, charge under Sections 379 and 411 IPC
was framed against the revisionist. As stated, the
revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under
Section 379 IPC and had been convicted and
sentenced under Section 411 IPC. The witnesses
of recovery have confirmed the recovery of
motorcycle from the revisionist. In the appeal, the
conviction under Section 411 IPC hasbeen
confirmed. The court has considered the evidence
on those aspects. In fact, this finding of conviction
under Section 411 IPC does not need any
interference.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that
this matter may be considered on the quantum of
sentence.
The revision is accordingly admitted to the extent
on quantum of sentence.
The revisionist has stated nothing about him in
the memo of revision as to what he does? What is
his income? How many members are in his
family? What have been his antecedents?
The impugned judgment of the court below also
does not reveal much on those aspects.
List this matter on 16.06.2022, just after fresh
cases.
In the meantime, learned State Counsel shall get
report with regard to the antecedent, profession,
family members and any other information that
may be helpful in determining the sentence
Learned State Counsel shall also get a report
from concerned the police station/Probation
Officer."
4. According to the prosecution case, the
motorcycle of the informant was stolen on 05.04.2014,
at 5:30 in the evening, which was recovered from the
possession of the applicant on 29.04.2014.
5. After trial, the trial court convicted the
applicant under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to
3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
5,000/-.
6. In appeal, while upholding the conviction,
sentence has been reduced from 3 years to 2 years
rigorous imprisonment, with the fine remaining
unaltered.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that revisionist is a young boy of 30 years; he
is an agriculturist; his two sisters are already married;
he has old aged parents at home; he is not a previous
convict; it is his first offence; he should be given
benefit of probation.
8. This Court, while admitting the revision on
10.06.2022 required learned State Counsel to get a
report with regard to the antecedents, profession,
family members and any other information that may
be helpful in determining the sentence. It was required
that the report may be sought from police
station/Probation Officer.
9. Learned State Counsel would submit that
he has received a report from the concerned police
station, according to which, the applicant is an
agriculturist. He has two sisters and parents at home.
He is not a previous convict.
10. Sentencing is, in fact, one of the most
crucial aspect of criminal jurisprudence. Reform of a
convict is one of the aspects of criminal justice
dispensation system. Applicant has been convicted for
the theft of a motorcycle. He is 30 years age young
boy. It is his first offence.
11. Therefore, having considered the entirety of
facts and attending circumstances, this Court is of the
view that instead of sentencing the applicant
immediately, he may be released on probation for a
period of 6 months.
12. Accordingly, the revision may be partly
allowed.
13. The revision is partly allowed. The
conviction of the revisionist under Section 411 IPC is
upheld.
14. The revisionist shall be released on his
entering into a bond and two sureties of like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned , to appear and
receive sentence when called upon during next 6
months and in the meantime to keep the peace and be
of good behavior.
15 The impugned judgment and order is
modified accordingly.
16. A copy of this order be given today, itself, to
the court concerned and also to the jail concerned by
E-mail.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
16.06.2022
Ravi Bisht
