Jagdish Chand @Hash State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 12.05.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 1388 of 2019, State v. Jagdish Chandra, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, though the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Section 354B and 506 IPC, but has been convicted under Sections 323, 504, 509, 341 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 323 IPC – to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

(ii) Under Section 504 IPC – to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

(iii) Under Section 341 IPC – to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

(iv) Under Section 509 IPC – to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days; and

(ii) Judgment and order dated 10.09.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2022, Jagdish Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Jude, Rudrapur (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case has been affirmed.

The instant revision has been admitted on the correctness of the sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist has been in custody for more than three months, therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in jail.

Learned State Counsel admits that the revisionist has been in custody for ninety-three days. Learned State Counsel could not reveal any criminal antecedent of the revisionist also.

According to the FIR in the case, on 23.03.2019, at about 08:00 in the morning, the revisionist abused the informant, attacked her and torn her clothes. A report was given, based on which FIR No. 72 of 2019, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 509, 354B IPC was lodged at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet, which is the basis of the case. On 07.03.2020, charges under Sections 323, 354B, 509, 504, 506 & 341 IPC were framed against the revisionist, which he denied and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW 1 the informant, PW 2 Laxmi, PW 3 Guddi Devi, PW 4 Mahesh Rajwar, PW 5 Dr. Amit Bansal and PW 6 SI Preeti Tomar.

PW 1 is the informant. She has stated that on 21.03.2019, she was going to market; the applicant abused her and did maar-peet with her, due to which her clothes were also torn. She raised an alarm and that is how she was saved.

PW 2 Laxmi is the sister-in-law of PW 1. She has supported her statement.

PW 3 Smt. Guddi Devi has stated that after the incident, the PW 1 had telephoned her that she has been abused and assaulted. She has also stated that the revisionist had earlier also molested the PW 1.

PW 4 Mahesh Rajwar is the brother of PW 1. He has also stated that the PW 1 informed her about the incident over the telephone.

PW 5 is Dr. Amit Bansal, who medically examined PW 1. He has proved the medical report. PW 6 SI Preeti Tomar is the Investigating Officer.

After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore, which was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

In so far as the conviction of the revisionist for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 341 and 509 IPC is concerned, it does not warrant any interference. The conviction of the revisionist is, therefore, upheld.

In so far as the question of sentence is concerned, it always falls for consideration once the conviction is recorded. Various factors are weighed in the mind of the court. It depends on the circumstances of the case, the position of the accused as well as the injured/victim and other attending factors.

Having considered, the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be better served if in the case the sentenced is modified and the period of sentence be reduced to the extent as indicated below:-

(i) Under Section 323 IPC – to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

(ii) Under Section 504 IPC – to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

(iii) Under Section 341 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for five days.

(iv) Under Section 509 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 323, 504, 341, 509 IPC is upheld. The imposition of fine shall remain unaltered.

The sentence of imprisonment is modified as follows:-

(i) Under Section 323 IPC – to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

(ii) Under Section 504 IPC – to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

(iii) Under Section 341 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for five days.

(iv) Under Section 509 IPC – to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The revision is partly allowed accordingly.

The judgments and orders passed in the case as well as in the appeal stands modified to the extent as indicated above.

The revisionist is in jail. Let him be set free forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.

Let a copy of this judgment and order along with lower court record be forwarded to the court concerned.