AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 340 wordsSanjaya Kumar Mishra, J
Heard Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. None appears for the appellant.
None appears on behalf of the appellant on 28.02.2017 and on 31.12.2021. On 31.12.2021, this Court called for a report whether the prisoner is still in custody or has been released after serving his sentence? It is apparent from the letter received from the Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Haridwar and the In-charge Superintendent, District Jail, Chamoli that the appellant has been released on 26.10.2019 after serving his sentence.
Though such release after serving the sentence does not make a criminal appeal infructuous, it is noted that the appellant is not appearing in the Court either personally or through his counsel. It appears that the appellant is no more interested to prosecute the criminal appeal.
This Court carefully examined the impugned judgment and the evidences available on record. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. He has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
There are no direct evidences in this case. The prosecution relied upon the dying declaration, recorded by the Investigating Officer, in the presence of the doctor, who has certified the dying declaration.
Having carefully examined the record and on hearing Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope of interference by this Appellate Court to set aside the conviction recorded under Section 304 Part II of IPC and Section 498A of IPC, and the sentences imposed thereunder. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the present criminal appeal. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.