Balvindra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudrapur in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2011, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 458 of 2011, whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279, 304-A & 427 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for each Sections and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in each Section. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further one month additional imprisonment in each Section. All sentences are directed to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the revisionist does not press this revision on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum 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.

Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist. She fairly concedes that revisionist has served about eighteen days in the jail.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a poor person and the matter relates back to the year 2011. He further submits there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offences. He submits that revisionist has already served about eighteen days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist is a poor person and the fact that matter relates back to the year 2011, 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 is reduced, adjusting the period already undergone by the revisionist as under:-

(i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the sentence is reduced to 45 days along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional ten days imprisonment.

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, the sentence is reduced to 45 days along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional ten days imprisonment.

(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC, the sentence is reduced to 45 days along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional ten days imprisonment.

The amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited before the trial Court within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

The revisionist shall surrender before the Court concerned within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Since the matter is finally disposed of, the order dated 09.09.2020, whereby NBW was issued against the revisionist, has got merged in the final order and as such the Warrant Recall Application No. 3787 of 2020 is dismissed as infructuous.

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