High CourtsSingle Bench

Avinash Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 22 September 2020 · Citation: (2020) 09 UK CK 0054

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.S. Dhanik, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 326, 506(2)
RESULT
Dismissed/ Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 181 Of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 676 words

N.S. Dhanik, J

1.

This criminal revision is preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2010, "Avinash Sharma v. State", whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order dated 02.01.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 54 of 2007. By the said judgment and order dated 02.01.2010, the revisionist has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The revisionist has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

2.

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the revisionist was on bail during trial as well as on appeal and he never misused the liberty given to him. It is also submitted that the revisionist is a student and has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present case. It is further submitted that the main accused has already convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC by the court below whereas the revisionist has been acquitted for the same. It is also submitted that at the time of alleged incident, the present revisionist was not present on the spot. Furthermore, the occurrence relates back to the year 2006.

3.

After arguing at some length, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist limits his prayer only on the point of quantum of sentence and does not press this revision on merits. He is only submitting on the order of sentence. Since the revisionist'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 offences is maintained.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has undergone seven months in jail and there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence.

5.

Learned State Counsel seriously opposed the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist. She submits that the alleged offence committed by the revisionist is a heinous crime. She also submits that the present revisionist was also involved in the conspiracy. She fairly concedes that the revisionist has served almost seven months in the jail.

6.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the poor person and the only bread earner of his family. He submits that revisionist has served around seven months in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

7.

Since the revisionist has served around seven months imprisonment and also considering the fact that the revisionist has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and the incident is of the year 2006, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the revisionist, is sufficient to serve the purpose.

8.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence under Section 120B and 506(2) of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence of fine of the revisionist is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- under Section 120B of IPC. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within one month. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the revisionist fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within one month from today, he shall serve the additional six months imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

9.

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