Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 547 UK

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 547 UK
Judgement Date : 3 April, 2024

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 April, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 72 of 2024
Veeru Koli
                                                             ...Revisionist

                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                        ...Respondent
Present:-
            Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the revisionist.
            Mr. M.A. Khan, AGA with Mr. Vipul Painuli, Brief Holder for
            the State.




Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 28.11.2019,

passed in Criminal Case No.6042 of

2014, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Veeru

Koli, by the court of Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate/4th Additional

Civil Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham

Singh Nagar ("the case"). By it, the

revisionist has been convicted under

Sections 323 and 354D IPC, and

sentenced as follows:-

(a) Under Section 354D IPC - to

undergo 2 years' rigorous

imprisonment with a fine of

Rs. 2,000/-. In default of

payment of fine, to undergo 3

months' additional simple

imprisonment.

(b) Under Section 323 IPC - to

undergo 6 months' rigorous

imprisonment with a fine of

Rs. 500/-. In default of

payment of fine, to undergo 1

month's additional simple

imprisonment.

(ii) Judgment and order dated

14.09.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal

No.412 of 2019, Veeru Koli Vs. State of

Uttarakhand, by the court of 3rd

Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar

("the appeal"). By it, the appeal has

been dismissed and the order dated

28.11.2019 passed in the case has

been affirmed.

2. On 18.03.2024, instant revision has been

admitted to the limited extent of examining the correctness

of the sentence imposed on the revisionist. The lower court

record has also been received.

3. According to the prosecution case, on

04.11.2014, when the victim was returning from her work

place when she was followed by the applicant. He made

obscene gestures and tried to molest the victim and when

the victim resisted to it, he abused the victim. It is further

the prosecution case that when the husband of the victim

reached at the place, the revisionist further abused them

and hit them with his car. Based on this FIR, after

investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the

revisionist and on 05.04.2016, charges under Section 354D,

323 and 504 of IPC was framed against.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has

examined 5 witnesses, namely, PW1 the victim herself, PW2

the husband of the victim, PW3 Madhu Bora (in fact, she

has not supported the prosecution case), PW4 Harish

Gautam (he was declared hostile) and PW5 SI Siraj Ahmed,

the Investigating Officer. After prosecution evidence, the

revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied the prosecution case

and stated that he has falsely been implicated.

5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned

judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has

been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. It

must be noted here that the revisionist has been acquitted

of the charge under Section 504 IPC. The judgment and

order passed in the case has been upheld in the appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit

that the revisionist may be released on probation.

8. Learned State Counsel would submit that the

revisionist has already been in custody in the case for three

months and seven days.

9. After recording conviction in the criminal case,

one of the toughest tasks is to impose an adequate

sentence. There are less guidelines, which may assist the

Court to reach proper and adequate sentence. Various

factors are taken into custody, which includes the gravity of

offence, the nature of offence, the manner in which the

offence was done, the gravity of it, the position of the

offender, the victim and the attending circumstances.

10. In the instant case, the revisionist has been

convicted under Section 354D IPC for stalking. This section

reads as follows:-

"354D. Stalking.--(1) Any man who--

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,

commits the offence of stalking:

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."

11. In addition to it, the revisionist has also

been convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing

simple injuries to the victim and her husband. It is not

the prosecution case that the revisionist followed on

multiple occasions the victim. It is one incident of

04.11.2014. It has not been brought to the notice of

the Court by the prosecution that on any subsequent

occasion also such an act was ever committed by the

revisionist.

12. In view of it, having considered the facts of the

case, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice

would be better served, if the period of sentence is modified