Mesha And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/2nd F.T.C., Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2010, "Mesha vs. State of Uttarkhand" under Section 379 of IPC, registered at P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar and also against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Roorkee in Case No. 1338 of 2010, "State vs. Mesha" under Section 379 of IPC, whereby the revisionists were convicted for six months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, the revisionists have been sentenced further to undergo for a period of one month simple imprisonment.

Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant, namely, Brijpal had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that in his Khasra No. 731 and his Uncle's (Chacha) Khasra No. 732 which is situated at Village Harjoli Jat, Pragna Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee, where seven years old popular trees were standing, on 03/04.01.2001 at the night around 12:00 P.M., the complainant and his cousin brother saw the present revisionists and other three persons while cutting the trees of his & his uncle's field and were filling it in the tractor-trolley and when they interrupted them, they used filthy and abusive language and also fired with a intention to kill them.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 379, 504 & 506 IPC. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

Learned counsel for the revisionists does not press this revision on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the revisionists' counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction under Section 379 IPC is maintained.

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists are the poor persons and they are the only bread earners of their family and the occurrence relates back to year 2001. He submits that the revisionists have already served about six days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionists, may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists. It is also submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the revisionists, nor is any sympathy called for in the instant case.

Since the revisionists have served six days imprisonment, and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the revisionists, is sufficient to serve the purpose.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the revisionists are the poor persons, 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 to the period already undergone by the revisionists. The sentence of fine is enhanced from 500/- to Rs. 4,000/- each. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court. If the revisionists fail to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within two months from today, they shall serve the additional three months imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

Since the matter is finally disposed of, the order dated 10.08.2020, whereby bailable warrants were issued against the revisionists, has got merged in the final order and as such the Warrant Recall Application No. 3050 of 2020 is dismissed as infructuous.

Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned.