Aman Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2013, "State v. Raman Singh and another", whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the appellant limits his prayer only on the point of quantum of sentence and does not press this appeal on merits. He is only submitting on the order of sentence. Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction in the aforementioned offence is maintained.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has undergone two years five months and twenty one days in jail, and there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence.

Learned State Counsel fairly concedes that the appellant has undergone two years five months & twenty one days in jail.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the poor person and the only bread earner of his family. He submits that the appellant has undergone two years five months and twenty one days in jail, and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the appellant, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Since the appellant has undergone two years five months & twenty one days in jail and also considering that there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the appellant, is sufficient to serve the purpose.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the appellant is the poor person, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.20, 000/-to Rs. 30,000/-. The total enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within one month. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the appellant fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within one month from today, he shall serve the additional two years imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned.