Jagdish Chandra Tiruwa vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in

Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2018, “Victim vs. State & anotherâ€, whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 2

against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Criminal Case No. 330 of 2017, whereby

the learned Appellate Court set-aside the acquittal of the revisionist and convicted the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 354-D(1) (i)

(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further ten days

imprisonment. Revisionist was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 448/511 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months

imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall served additional ten days imprisonment. Revisionist was also

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In

default of payment of fine, he shall serve the additional ten days imprisonment. All the sentences shall 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 02

months 01 day in the jail.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a poor person and he is the only bread earner of his family. He further submits

there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offences. He submits that revisionist has already served about 02 months 01 day 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; he is the only bread earner of his family and the matter relates to

the year 2018, 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 354-D (1) (i)

(ii) IPC, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/, and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional 15 days imprisonment.

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 448/511 IPC, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment fine, he shall

serve the additional 10 days imprisonment.

(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment fine, he shall serve

the additional ten days imprisonment.

The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. 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.