Rohitash Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3770 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2022

Rohitash Singh                                       ...... Revisionist

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                               ..... Respondent



Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State.


                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant revision is preferred against the

followings:

(i) Judgment and order dated 18.06.2019,

passed in Criminal Case No.1150 of 2016,

State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rohtash Kumar, by

the court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal

("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been

convicted under Section 354 IPC and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period one year with a fine of Rs.

1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to

undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.

And;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 27.07.2022,

passed in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2019,

Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by

the court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal ("the

appeal"). By it, the appeal filed by the

revisionist has been dismissed and the order

passed in the case has been affirmed

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the

controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. On

20.09.2016, PW1, the victim had gone into the forest

to collect grass. While she was returning, the

revisionist in a naked condition tried to grab her. PW1,

the victim, got scared. She somehow managed to

escape. The FIR was lodged of the incident, in which

after investigation chargesheet was submitted and the

proceedings of the case were instituted. In the case,

the prosecution adduced evidence. The revisionist was

examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. According to the revisionist, he has

been falsely implicated. By the impugned judgment

and order dated 18.06.2019, the revisionist has been

convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period one year

with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. This judgment and order

has been confirmed in the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

restrict his arguments to the quantum of sentence. He

would submit that the victim is married. The

revisionist is a villager, an agriculturist and a labourer;

he has no criminal antecedents; this is his first

offence; he stays in the village; he has been in jail from

the date when his appeal was rejected on 27.07.2022.

He would submit that instead of sentencing, the

revisionist may be released on probation of good

conduct.

5. On this question, learned State Counsel was

required to get instructions.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that a

report from Probation Officer has been received,

according to which, the victim is already married; the

conduct of the revisionist is good with the villagers; he

is a labourer; he has no criminal antecedents.

7. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that while upholding the

conviction, instead of sentencing at once, the

revisionist may be released on probation.

8. Accordingly, the revision may be partly

allowed.

9. The conviction of the revisionist under

Section 354 IPC is upheld.

10. Instead of sentencing at once, let the

revisionist be released on his entering into a bond with

two sureties, to the satisfaction of court concerned, to

appear and receive sentence when called upon during

a period of one year and, in the meantime, keep peace

and be of good behaviour.

11. The impugned judgments and orders are

modified to the extent as indicated above.

12. The revision is partly allowed, accordingly.

13. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower

court record be forward to the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 23.11.2022 Ravi Bisht