Uttarakhand High Court
Sachin Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 October, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1076 of 2025
Sachin Rana ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Ashish Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks
resettling of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, which has
been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court even in the review
petition. The petitioner seeks directions that he may be acquitted of
the charge in which he has been convicted and compensation may
also be awarded to him for the 12 years' period during which he
was behind bars.
2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly
stated, are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner was chargesheeted for the offence under
Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC in FIR No.469 of 2013, Police
Station-Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Based on it, the
proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 367 of 2013, State Vs. Sachin
Rana, were instituted in the court of Sessions Judge, Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar ("the Sessions Trial"). The Sessions
Trial was decided on 03.06.2015, and the petitioner was convicted
and sentenced under Sections 302, 201 IPC.
(ii) The petitioner did challenge his conviction before the
High Court in Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2015 ("the appeal"). The
appeal was dismissed.
(iii) The petitioner challenged the judgment of the appeal
passed by the High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
Crl No.7317 of 2022, which was also dismissed.
(iv) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed.
3. Now, the petitioner seeks his acquittal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
conviction has wrongly been recorded; there is no evidence, which
may justify the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has been convicted, and his conviction
has been upheld even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The review
petition has also been dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may
still have an opportunity of filing curative petition, if law permits so.
But, in the writ petition, the evidence may not be re-appreciated to
unsettle such finding, which has attained finality.
7. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason
to make any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to
be dismissed at the stage of admission, itself.
8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
06.10.2025
Ravi Bisht
