Uttarakhand High Court
Rampal And Three Others ...Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 February, 2024
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
23rd FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 154 of 2004
Rampal and three Others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Shashi Kant
Shandilya, Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief
Holder.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The present Appeal has been filed against the
judgment dated 19.05.2004, passed by learned Ist Fast
Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District
Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 1998, "State vs.
Rampal and three Others", by which, the appellants-
Rampal, Samer Chand, Parmender have been convicted
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC"); they have been convicted
under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and have
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months, and, they have been further
convicted under Part-I of Section 304 IPC and have been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of five years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. The appellant
no.4- Smt. Birmi has been convicted under Section 323
read with Section 34 IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
months; she has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year
under Section 324 IPC, and, she has been further
convicted under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC and
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of two years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. All the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Appellant no. 1-Rampal and appellant no. 2-
Samer Chand died during the pendency of the Appeal.
3. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate, submitted
that the appellant no. 3-Parmender and appellant no. 4-
Smt. Birmi are facing trial since 19.04.1997 and the
present Appeal is pending since 2004. Appellant no. 3-
Parmender has spent eleven days and the appellant no. 4-
Smt. Birmi, aged about 65 years, has spent twenty days in
judicial custody. Appellants do not have any criminal
antecedents.
4. After the said submissions, Mr. Shashi Kant
Shandilya, Advocate, has requested to reduce the
sentence of the appellant no. 3 and the appellant no. 4 to
the period they have already spent in judicial custody. He
has further submitted that the amount of fine may be
increased.
5. Learned counsel for the State has not opposed
the said submissions. According to him, there is nothing
on record to show that the appellants had earlier been
involved in any unacceptable activities.
6. Section 304 IPC does not prescribe any
minimum sentence of imprisonment.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
sentence of imprisonment of the appellant no. 3 and the
appellant no. 4 is reduced to the sentence already
undergone by them subject to the appellant no. 3-
Parmender paying Rs. 10,000/- fine and the appellant
no. 4- Smt. Birmi paying Rs. 5,000/- fine within fifteen
days from today, as prayed by Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya,
Advocate. If fine is not paid, consequences will follow.
8. The present Appeal (No. 154 of 2004) is
disposed of by altering the sentence imposed by the trial
court accordingly.
9. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to
the learned counsel for the appellants, today itself, as per
rules.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt:23.02.2024
Shiksha
