Uttarakhand High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Jail Revision No. 4 of 2023
Manoj Kumar ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Mr. Rajendra Arya, learned Amicus Curiae.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant revision is preferred against the
following:-
(A) Judgment and order dated 04.06.2019,
passed in Criminal Case No.377 of
2017, State Vs. Manoj Kumar, by the
court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur,
District Udham Singh Nagar ("the
case"). By it, the revisionist has been
acquitted of the charge under Sections
504 and 506 IPC, but he has been
convicted for the offences under Section
325 IPC, and sentenced to two years'
simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.
2000/-. It has further been stipulated
that in default of payment of fine, the
revision shall undergo further simple
imprisonment for a period of two
months. And;
(B) Judgment and order dated 12.12.2022,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.191 of
2019, Manoj Kumar Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, by the court of Second
Additonal Sessions Judge, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar ("the
appeal"). By it, the judgment and order
dated 04.06.2019, passed in the case
has been upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. This revision has yet not been admitted.
Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the quantum
of sentence may be revisited and its legality, correctness
and propriety may be examined. Therefore, with the
consent of both the parties, the revision is being heard
and finally decided at the stage of admission itself.
4. According to the prosecution case, the
PW1, Omprakash Singh, the informant, was the Village
Pradhan at the relevant time. On 25.09.2016, he was
inspecting a road under construction when suddenly,
according to the FIR, at 11:30 AM, the revisionist
appeared there and started attacking the informant with
kicks fists and punch. Somehow the informant was
saved. The FIR was lodged. After investigation,
chargesheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504,
506, 325 IPC against the revisionist, which is the basis
of the case.
5. On 05.08.2017, charge under Sections
323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC were framed against the
revisionist, to which he denied and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
has examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1
Omprakash Singh, PW2, Kamal Singh, PW3 Harish
Kumar, PW4 Sompal, PW5 SI Rewati Nandan, PW6 Dr.
Dhirendra Mohan, and PW7 SI Madan Singh Bisht.
7. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist
was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. According to him, he is innocent and
has been wrongly implicated.
8. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist
has been convicted and sentenced, as stated
hereinbefore. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist
unsuccessfully preferred the appeal.
9. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that
the revisionist has been in custody for more than 18
months now; he is not a previous convict; he should now
be released for the period of custody, which he has
already undergone in the case.
10. Learned State Counsel would submit that
the revisionist has already undergone 1 Year 8 months
and 12 days custody in the case; he is not a previous
convict.
11. PW1, Omprakash Singh, is the informant
of the case. In his evidence, according to him, on
25.09.2016, when he was inspecting an under-
construction road, he was attacked by the revisionist,
due to which he sustained some injuries. He was saved
by some witnesses.
12. PW2, Kamal Singh, and PW3, Harish
Kumar, have supported the prosecution case.
13. PW4, Sompal, has also stated that on the
date of incident, he had seen the informant below a
motorcycle, and the neighbourer had saved PW1,
Omprakash Singh, from the revisionist.
14. PW5, S.I. Rewati Nandan is the
Investigating Officer.
15. PW6, Dr. Dhirendra Mohan, has proved the
injury report. According to him, the third rib of PW1,
Omprakash Singh, had a fracture, which was grievous.
16. PW7, S.I. Madan Singh Bisht, has also
proved certain documents.
17. The trial court has considered the evidence
quite in detail and has also considered the arguments
and convicted the revisionist under Section 325 IPC and
sentenced him. As stated, it has been confirmed in
appeal.
18. What is being argued is that the revisionist
deserves his release and the sentence may be restricted
to the period, which he has already undergone in the
case.
19. After finding of guilt is recorded, one of the
important tasks for the criminal court is to ascertain an
adequate sentence. Sentencing is such an act, which
requires consideration of various factors including the
nature of offence, the circumstances under which it is
done, the offender, the victim, their relationship and
other attending circumstances.
20. In the instant case, admittedly, PW1,
Omprakash, the informant, was a Village Pradhan, who,
according to the prosecution, was supervising the
construction work when he was attacked. In his cross
examination, PW1, Omprakash, has stated that the
revisionist had filed a criminal case against the son of
PW1, Omprakash. He has also admitted that prior to
this FIR, the revisionist had filed a case against PW1,
Omprakash and his son, in which they were on bail.
PW1, Omprakash, has also admitted that the revisionist
had obtained various information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, from him, with regard to the
work, that was conducted by the Village Gram Sabha.
21. Parties had enmity between them. The
revisionist was seeking information with regard to the
work done by the Village Pradhan. Two years' simple
imprisonment has been awarded to the revisionist under
Section 325 IPC.
22. The genesis of the offence may be seen.
According to the FIR, when the revisionist reached at the
spot, he pushed PW1, Omprakash Singh, from his
motorcycle, due to which he fell done. PW4, Sompal, has
stated that he had seen PW1, Omprakash, below the
motorcycle. The injury report is Ex.-A3. There was no
external injury on the chest. Complaint of pain was
reported and, subsequently, a fracture was found. The
attack was made by fists and kicks.
23. Having considered all these factors, this
Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be
served if the revisionist is sentenced under Section 325
IPC to the period of custody, which he has already
undergone in the case.
24. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed.
25. The conviction of the revisionist under
Section 325 IPC is upheld.
26. The sentence of the revisionist under
Section 325 IPC is restricted to the period of custody,
which he has already undergone in the case. The
amount of fine shall remain unaltered.
27. The impugned judgments and orders are
modified in terms of sentence, as indicated hereinabove.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.04.2024
Ravi Bisht
