Sangrammu Lal And Others ..... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2183 UK

                               Judgment reserved on: 19.05.2023
                               Judgment delivered on: 10.08.2023

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                             NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 340 of 2013

Sangrammu Lal and Others                          ..... Revisionists

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                              ......Respondent

Present:
     Mr. Navneesh Negi and Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocates for the
     revisionists.
     Mr. T.C. Agarwal, D.A.G. alongwith Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder
     for the State of Uttarakhand.

Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2011, "Sangrammu Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand", whereby, the judgment and order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag, in Criminal Case No. 79 of 2010, "State Vs. Sangrammu Lal and Others", convicting the revisionists/accused persons under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC, was upheld and the appeal filed by the revisionists/accused persons was dismissed.

2. The revisionists/accused persons were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each

under Section 147 of IPC, with default stipulation, one month additional simple imprisonment each and were sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 323 of IPC, with default stipulation, one month additional simple imprisonment each.

3. The brief facts of this case are that complainant-Tej Singh and the accused persons are the residents of same village. On 31.07.2006, complainant Tej Singh had filed a complaint against the accused persons Sangramu Lal, Chhota Lal, Indra Lal, Kunwar Lal and Smt. Jasoda Devi under Sections 147, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC in the Court, in which 15.09.2006 was fixed for their appearance and summons were issued against them. The accused persons bore enmity with the complainant and his family and on 31.08.2006 at 08:00 PM, the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant with an intention to kill the complainant and they started beating him. When the wife of complainant, Smt. Basanti Devi intervened, accused Chhota Lal and others along with Jashoda Devi, Bongali Devi, Moti Devi, Km. Kutani, Kunwari Devi, Km. Rupoti, wife of Chhota Lal suddenly rushed upon her and beat her badly. Shyam Lal, Kalam Singh, Geena Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Gabar Singh and other people saved them from the accused. During the course of incident, the accused persons snatched Rs.3000/- from the pocket of the complainant. They also looted Torch, Flour, Rice and Rs.8000/- in cash from the house of Shyam Lal. The complainant along with other villagers went to Patwari Chowki for lodging the report the same night, but the Patwari and his peon were fully intoxicated and so they told them to come next day. As the incident was of the night, so the medical examination of the injured could not be conducted promptly. Sri Abbal Singh Gram Prahari also remained with them in the night. On the next day the

complainant and his wife came to Rudraprayag where they got themselves medically examined, got their medical certificates and then moved an application before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag.

4. On the basis of the complaint dated 01.09.2006 filed by informant/complainant in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, a chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5) was lodged in Patwari Circle Kot-Bangar, District Rudraprayag on 13.09.2006 at 10:00 AM, against the revisionist/accused-Sangrammu Lal and 12 other persons and on the basis of which, a Case Crime No.1 of 2006 was registered against the revisionists/accused and other persons under Sections 147, 307, 394, 395 and 450 of IPC.

5. The investigation ensued by the Patwari concern and finally a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-4) was filed on 02.03.2008, only against the revisionists and one Bheem Raj Lal S/o Shyam Lal under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag took cognizance upon the charge-sheet and after compliance of the formalities of supplying the papers of the prosecution to the accused persons, charges under sections 147, 504, 323 and 506 of IPC were framed against the revisionists/accused on 04.11.2009.

7. The revisionists/accused persons pleaded not guilty and prayed for their trial.

8. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 Tej Singh (Complainant), PW-2 Shyam Lal S/o Saguni, PW-3 Ranjeet Singh, PW-4 Gheena, PW-5 Dr. B.S. Chauhan, who

examined the complainant-Tej Singh and injured Basanti Devi W/o Tej Singh, PW-6- injured Basanti Devi, W/o Tej Singh, PW-7 Narendra Dutt Chamola, Patwari-Bhatwari, PW-8 Ummed Singh Bisht, Patwari, who filed charge-sheet and PW-9 Balbir Singh, Patwari (Investigating Officer). The prosecution witnesses proved the incident and the documents and exhibited the documents filed by the prosecution during the trial.

9. The revisionists/accused persons, after completion of the prosecution evidence, were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which all of them had come up with a case of total denial and had stated that they had falsely been implicated by the prosecution and the witnesses were testifying against them due to enmity, except accused Shiv Raj Lal, who stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he had refused to sell land to Shyam Lal (PW-2), witness of the prosecution, he was therefore named in the complaint and witnesses were deposing against him falsely. They refused to give any defence evidence.

10. Learned trial court after meticulously examining the evidence on record, came to this conclusion that the involvement of the revisionists/accused persons in the incident was proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the revisionists/accused persons under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC and sentenced accordingly as stated above.

11. The revisionists/accused persons challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, by filing appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag on various grounds, mainly, the contradictions, and material development in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It has been alleged by the revisionists that the evidence of the prosecution witness on

record has not been considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag in right perspective and there was no independent witness produced.

12. The learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and recorded the finding that the case of the prosecution was supported by the injured witnesses and the said evidence was unimpeachable barring a few immaterial contradictions. The learned Sessions Judge further stated that the eye-witnesses on account of the three injured witnesses were also fully supported by the medical report, which was also proved by Doctor B. S. Chauhan-PW-5, who conducted the medical examination of the witnesses. The medical reports, exhibited as Ext. Ka-2, medical report of injured Tej Singh- complainant and as Ext. Ka-3, medical report of injured Smt. Basanti Devi, were proved by the doctor (PW-5).

13. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal finding no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court.

14. The revisionists/accused persons are now before this Court challenging both the judgments and orders impugned.

15. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

16. The learned counsel for the revisionists has assailed the judgments and orders on the grounds which would amount only to be a re-appreciation of evidence, which has concurrently been appreciated by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court and believed to record a finding of conviction against the revisionists.

17. The learned counsel for the revisionists took this Court through the evidence of PW-1-Tej Singh informant, PW-2 injured Shyam Lal, PW-6 injured Basanti Devi and tried to make out a case, where this Court can go into the perversity of the judgments and orders rendered by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court.

18. This Court does not find any material in the evidence, which was ignored by both the Courts and on the basis of which, it can be inferred that the judgments and orders passed by the learned trial court and learned appellate court are perverse.

19. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction in revisional capacity, cannot re-appreciate the evidence except to the extent of perversity shown by the revisionists/accused persons. There is no legal infirmity and illegality which could be shown by the learned counsel for the revisionists in the finding recorded by the learned courts below.

20. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2011 convicting the accused persons under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag and the judgment and order dated 28.05.2013, by which the said conviction was affirmed by the learned appellate court.

21. The learned counsel for the revisionists at last requested this Court to consider this aspect of the matter that instead of sending the revisionists jail for serving the sentence of imprisonment, the same can be substituted for fine.

22. I have considered this argument and have gone through the provisions of Section 147 and 323 of the IPC. Offence under Section 147 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both and offence under Section 323 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

23. Since, the revisionists/accused persons are the poor villagers of remote village of District Rudraprayag, State of Uttarakhand and belong to lower strata of the society, the interest of justice would met, if instead of sending the revisionists/ accused persons to jail to serve out the period of sentence of imprisonment, it be converted into a sentence of fine. The sentence of imprisonment is hereby converted into a sentence of fine only.

24. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. The sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag is converted to the fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 147 of IPC and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 323 of IPC, in case of default of payment of fine, the revisionists/accused persons shall undergo the sentence, which was imposed by learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag.

25. Let the Lower Court Record of the case be returned to the learned court of Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag for necessary and follow-up actions as per law.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) PN/-