Jaiveer & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

R.C. Khulbe, J

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fourth FTC, Haridwar in S.T. No.307 of 2000, State vs. Jaiveer & others, whereby, each of the appellant-accused, was convicted and sentenced by the Court below as under: -

Section of conviction

Sentence awarded

385 IPC

One year R.I.

436 IPC

Five years' R.I.

323/34 IPC

Six months' R.I.

324/34 IPC

One year R.I.

452 IPC

One year R.I.

All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW2 Raj Kumar gave a report on 25.08.1999 with the averments that on 19.8.1999, all the four appellants, namely, Jaiveer, Charan Singh, Suresh and Sulendra, being armed with batons and Balkati (a sharp edged weapon) came at the shop of complainant to assault him. When they bent upon to assault him, then he entered in another adjacent shop and bolted the door. Then, all the four appellants set the shop of appellant at fire. The brother of complainant Shobha Ram came out on hearing the noise, then the accused also entered his house where they assaulted the wife and daughter of Shobha Ram also and caused serious injuries to kill them. This incident was witnessed by a number of people. By the said incident, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/-due to breaking out of fire in his shop. The injured were thereafter medically examined.

On the basis of the above report, the case was registered against the appellants on 10.09.1999. The Investigating Officer, during investigation, prepared the site map after inspecting the place of occurrence and after completion of investigation, he accordingly submitted the charge-sheet against the accused.

The trial Court, accordingly, framed the Charge against the appellants-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Shobha Ram, PW2 Raj Kumar, PW3 Smt. Urmila, PW4 Ms. Pinky, PW5 S.I. Jodh Singh, PW6 S.I. O.P. Sisodiya, PW7 Dr. B.S. Saini and PW8 S.I. S.P. Verma.

Thereafter, the statements of appellants were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegations levelled against them.

The trial court, having perused the entire material made available on record, vide the judgment and order under appeal, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, appellants have preferred the present appeal.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire material available on the record.

Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Sections 385, 436, 452, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court, and he also does not want to lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court may be reduced to two years and six months. The reasons shown for such a prayer are that appellants are the sole bread earners in their family; the occurrence took place 20 years ago; there is no criminal history against them; and lastly, the appellants were sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment besides other sentences, against which, they have already served a substantive period.

After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant to two and half years' R.I., instead of five years, as awarded by the Court below u/s 436 IPC, without disturbing the sentence awarded to them under the other sections.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction part of the appellants is left intact. However, the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to each of the appellants by the Court below under Section 436 IPC, is hereby reduced to two and half years' R.I., instead of five years' R.I. The sentence awarded under the remaining sections is, however, maintained.

It is clarified that the period already undergone by the appellants shall be adjusted from the sentence, as imposed/modified by this Court, and after completion of sentence, they shall be released accordingly.

A copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below for onward compliance.