Uttarakhand High Court
Harish Singh vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 18 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 UTR 214
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.158 of 2020
Harish Singh ............... Revisionist
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand ... Respondent
Dated: 18.05.2021
Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Siddartha Bihst, learned B.H. for the State.
None is present for the respondent no.2, in spite of sufficient service.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Since the revision is time barred, accordingly, delay condonation application (CRMA No.751 of 2020) has been moved. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and delay in preferring the present revision is condoned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Admit.
4. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Criminal Case No.16 of 2018, "State Vs. Harish Singh" whereby the revisionist was convicted u/s 380 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation and U/s 457 IPC to undergo five years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation as well as the judgment and order dated 10.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in 2 criminal appeal no.29 of 2018, "Harish Singh Vs. State", whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the trial Court.
5. Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that on 01.10.2017 at about 12:30 A.M. the accused entered into the house of the informant and took away the domestic articles. On the basis of information, chick FIR No.19 of 2017, under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 380, 457 and 411 IPC. Accordingly, after compliance of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges were framed under Sections 380, 457 and 411 IPC. The revisionist denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution produced PW1 Pushpa Devi, PW2 Lachi Ram and PW3 S.I. Ramesh Singh Bora, PW4 S.I. Amarpal Singh and PW5 S.I. Chandra Singh.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidence and stated that the prosecution produced false evidence against him. In defence, DW-1 Dev Singh was produced.
8. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal no.29 of 2018, "Harish Singh Vs. State".
9. After hearing both the parties, the appellate Court came to this conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court and, accordingly, 3 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial Court's order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
10. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire evidence available on the record.
11. Learned Counsel for the revisionist fairly submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court rightly convicted the revisionist based on evidence. He fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2017; there is no criminal history and the revisionist has been acquitted by the trial court under Section 411 IPC; the revisionist has already served more than two and half years in jail and having regard to the nature of the offence committed by revisionist and his spotless carrier without any criminal antecedents, this Court, while upholding revisionist's conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the revisionist and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone.
12. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that there is no minimum sentence prescribed regarding the present offences committed by the revisionist.
13. I have also gone through the evidence on record and come to this conclusion that the trial Court has convicted the revisionist based on sufficient evidence. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings. The appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal legally.
14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and considering the fact that the incident is quite old and seems to have occurred in the year 2017; the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedents in his past life; and he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question. Looking to the nature of the offence, it is 4 considered to be just and proper to alter the sentence to the revisionist from 5 years' R.I. to the extent of two and half year's R.I. u/s 457 and 380 IPC.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision is allowed in part. The revisionist is sentenced as follows: -
A. The revisionist is sentenced to undergo two and half year's (thirty months) R.I. u/s 457 and 380 IPC, instead of five and three years' R.I., respectively, as awarded by the court below.
B. The fine awarded under each section is also maintained, and he shall deposit the fine as imposed by the trial court.
C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. D. On completion of period of sentence as modified by this Court, he shall be released from jail as per law and after due verification of records.
16. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned jail authority for compliance.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 18.05.2021 BS