Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/251/2013 on 28 October, 2020
Author: N.S. Dhanik
Bench: N.S. Dhanik
CRLR 251/2013 Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate, for the revisionist.
Mr. A.K. Sah, AGA, for the State.
Vide judgment and order dated 31.1.2013, the revisionist has been convicted for the offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and Section 292 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 292 IPC. The appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 13.9.2013 partly allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and affirmed the conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and Section 292 IPC.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that looking to the material on record, he is not challenging the conviction. He is only submitting on the quantum of sentence. Learned Counsel submitted that the revisionist has undergone 42 days in jail and there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offences. He also submitted that the incident is of the year 2009 and the revisionist is 40 years old poor labourer and the sole family breadwinner. Learned Counsel also submitted that the sentence imposed on the revisionist is not commensurate with the gravity of offence. Learned Counsel prayed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
Learned State Counsel admitted that the revisionist has so far undergone 42 days in jail.
In Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 588, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the question of sentence is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the incident took place and also considering that the incident is of the year 2009, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met if the jail sentence of six months imposed for the aforementioned offences is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist in the jail and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- for each one of the sentences.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction is affirmed. However, the jail sentence of six months is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist in the jail and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and Section 292 IPC. Enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited within one month from today, failing which the revisionist shall undergo one month imprisonment for each of the sentences. Fine already deposited, if any, shall be adjusted.
Impugned judgments and orders stand modified to the extent indicated above.
Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with LCR, be sent to the trial court for compliance.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 28.10.2020 Pr