Furkaan & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The revisionists are convicts for commission of an offence under Sections 323, 325, 504 & 506 of IPC, which was initiated against them after the registration of the FIR on 13.05.1999, which was registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 1999.

As a consequence of submission of chargesheet for being tried for the aforesaid offences a Criminal Case No. 333 of 2004 'State vs. Akhtar & Others' was registered and the trial was initiated before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, Haridwar. As per the prosecution story, which has come on record is to the effect that the father of the complainant Sageer Ahmed, when he was working on his agricultural field on 13.05.1999 at about 4:00 PM, he found that the medh (the boundaries of the agricultural plots) as to be broken. He tried to enquire about the said fact as to who was instrumental in breaking the medh of his agricultural plot and in that effort he contacted Akhtar, Son of Baru, Afzal and Furkan, son of Rehmat, all were the residents of Village Sultanpur, Thana Laksar, District Haridwar, who were at that point of time were found working in the adjoining fields. When Mr. Sageer Ahmed tried to enquire from the accused persons about the reason as to how the medh was broken, it is contended in the FIR as registered on 13.05.1999, that all the three accused persons, who are revisionists herein, they have abused the victim and assaulted Mr. Sageer Ahmed, and as a consequence of the assault he has suffered serious injuries and as per the prosecution story, which stood established by the statements recorded of PW3 Dr.Brahma Singh and PW4 Dr. Yogesh Kumar, who had supported the prosecution story so far with regards to the physical assault being committed on Mr. Sageer Ahmed by the revisionists resulting into causing injuries on his person and as per the report submitted by PW3, who was on duty at PHL, Laksar, District Haridwar, Dr. Brahma Singh, which was placed on record as exhibit-2 and the supplementary medical report, which was submitted by Dr. Yogesh Kumar, which finds place on record as exhibit-3 being radiologist expert report of 18.08.1999, which was a report submitted by the Government Hospital, Roorkee, wherein, in accordance with the x-ray plate no. 1165, it was found that Sageer Ahmed, who was at that point of time was of about 50 years of age, he was assaulted on his chest, and as a consequence thereto, Dr. Brahm Singh, who was examined as PW3, he has given the details of the injuries suffered by Mr. Sageer Ahmed and has recorded a statement that there were certain injuries marks of about 24 cms. to 19 cms., which were blueish in colour and they were in the shape of abrasion and was found on scalular region of the victim Sageer Ahmed. Besides he reported that victim was having pain in his right chest.

Another supplementary report dated 18.05.1999, which was given by PW3, who was radiologist, was to the effect that the victim Sageer Ahmed has reported that he is having some pain on his right side of his chest. Later on, on the examination being conducted and on submission of the x-ray report, it was found that his seventh, eighth and ninth rib on the left side of the chest were to be fractured. Thus, holding that the said injury to be of serious nature a medical report was called upon further called, which was submitted as exhibit-3, and as per the report of Dr. Yogesh Kumar, he has affirmed the fact that as far as the eighth and ninth rib bone on the right side was found to be fractured along with that he has also reported that the rib no. 7th, 8th & 9th on the left hand side of the chest was also found to be fractured, which is reported as under:

"1. छाती दायीं तरफ आठवीं व नवीं पसली का फ्रैक्चर पाया गया।

छाती बांयी तरफ सातवीं व आठवीं एवं नौंवीं पसली का फै्रक्चर पाया गया।"

The Trial was conducted and after appreciation of the evidence records and statement of witnesses, which were produced on record, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, has heard the accused revisionists on infliction of sentence upon them and then at that point of time also they have stated that since the offence in question being the first offence, they should be punished with lesser amount of sentence and also considering the fact that they happen to be of very young age of 36 and 30 year respectively, the said factor may also be taken into consideration, while sentencing them for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of IPC. Relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder:

"अभियुक्त की ओर से कथन किया गया कि और अभियुक्त अख्तर की आयु 75 वर्ष है तथा अभियुक्त अफजाल की आयु 36 वर्ष है एवं अभियुक्त फुरकान की आयु 30 वर्ष है। अभियुक्तगण परिवार में एकमात्र कमाने वाले व्यक्ति है। अतः कम से कम सजा दिये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है।"

Consequently, the learned Trial Court by the judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2008, has imposed a punishment upon the convict revisionists by directing them to undergo a simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 323 and a fine of Rs. 200/- each was imposed, for the offence under Section 325 the revisionists were sentenced to undergo one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- each was imposed, and similarly for the offence under Section 504 they were sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment of three months and a fine of Rs. 250/- each was imposed upon them.

The said judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2008 was put to challenge by the revisionists in a Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2008 'Akhtar & Others vs. State of Uttarakhand, and the Appellate Court too vide its impugned judgment dated 21.03.2011 had affirmed the judgment of conviction and recorded a concurrent finding with regards to the gravity of offence and injuries and the nature of injuries, which was suffered by the victim Sageer Ahmed, and the Appellate Court after considering the fact, that the fracture of rib bones in itself will be falling to be within the ambit of Section 325, since being medically reported as to be grievous injury inflicted, which would be fatal to the life of the victim, has concurrently recorded a finding with regards to the establishment of commission of offence of assault made by the present revisionists and the consequent injury, which was suffered by the victim, and has affirmed the sentence by the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2011.

As against the judgment of conviction dated 21.03.2011 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/ II F.T.C., Haridwar, revisionists have surrendered before the Court and they were taken in custody. Ultimately against the affirmation of sentence by the Appellate Court's order dated 21.03.2011, the revisionists had preferred the present revision on 15.06.2011, which was supported with the bail application, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 16.06.2011 had granted the bail to the present revisionists.

Even otherwise also, as it has been argued by the learned Government Advocate that when the offence was being tried, the revisionists after their surrender made before the Trial Court on the initiation of the proceedings before the Trial Court, they were granted bail on 19.05.1999, i.e. almost after a week of their surrender. Hence, it seems that on an overall determination of the period of sentence, which the revisionists have undergone, they have already served sentenced for some period in terms of the conviction order under challenge in the present revision as is apparent from the records.

After having considered the fact that the revisionists had already served some period of sentence, and also considering the fact that the age which the revisionists are having at present and also after considering the nature of injuries, which has reported by the PW3 and PW4, coupled with the admission made by the revisionists with regards to the commission of offence when they were heard at the stage of hearing on sentence, this Court is of the view that it would serve the interest of justice that if the sentence imposed in relation to the offence under Section 325, i.e. one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, that is reduced to a simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 300/- is permitted to be imposed on the revisionists.

In that view of the matter, the sentence as imposed over on the revisionist for the commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC, this Court is of the view that the same deserves to be reduced to a period of six months, whereas, the offence in relation to the Sections 323 and 506 of IPC, that is being directed to be maintained as it has been imposed by both the courts. However, the penalty, which has been imposed for the three offences, is not disturbed by this Court.

As a consequence of today's judgment, the revisionists, who are on bail, would forthwith surrender before the Magistrate concerned. They will be taken into custody immediately and they will serve the remaining period of sentence of six months of simple imprisonment, which is being imposed on them by today's judgment, and they are directed to undergo the sentence for the remaining period of six months sentence after including the period for which they have already served in jail.

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The sentence is only modified to the extent, so far it relates to the Section 325 of IPC, that is being directed to be reduced for a period of six months simple imprisonment. Rest of the sentences is not disturbed and all the sentences would run concurrently.

Accordingly, the sentence is modified to the extent that the conviction made by both the courts below in relation to the Section 325 of IPC, that is being directed to be reduced to six months, subject to the condition that the said period of sentence would be determined after including the period for which the revisionists have already served their sentence.

Revision accordingly partly stands succeeded.