Pawan Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Lok Pal Singh, J

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in criminal appeal no.33

of 2006 as well as the judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Kotdwara, District Pauri Garhwal in criminal case

no.233 of 2004, whereby said courts have convicted the revisionist/accused under Section 25 of Arms Act and have sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default, the revisionist/accused has to undergo simple imprisonment of 15

days.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17.12.2003 while the police party was busy in patrolling duty, they apprehended the revisionist/accused near

Hanuman Mandir who seeing the police personnel tried to flee away. On his search, one country made pistol 315 Bore and a used cartridge embedded

in the pistol was also recovered. Revisionist/accused was arrested in accordance with law and Fard thereof was prepared. F.I.R. was lodged at P.S.

Kalagarh, District Pauri and case crime no.102/2003 was registered against the revisionist/accused under Section 25 of Arms Act. Matter was

investigated. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the revisionist/accused in the court. Thereafter, charge was framed

against the revisionist/accused under sections 25 of Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On denial, trial begun. In order

to prove its case, prosecution got examined as many as four prosecution witnesses viz. PW1 Head Constable C.P. Devki Nandan Sharma, PW2 Head

Constable Head Mohirror Naresh Chand, PW3 Constable Rajendra Singh Barthwal and PW4 Inspector Chandra Pal Singh. After closure of

prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/revisionist was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations levelled against him.

However, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence, trial court convicted and sentenced the

revisionist/accused as above. Feeling aggrieved, revisionist/accused preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, which also met the same fate.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the revisionist would confine his argument qua the quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the

incident relates to the year 2003 and almost 15 years have passed till date. Since then the revisionist is facing mental agony due to the pendency of the

criminal case against him. He also submits that the revisionist has also remained in jail for a considerable period. He, thus, requests the Court to take a

lenient view by reducing the sentence of the revisionists to the period already undergone.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

Having considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the

impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below. Both the courts have rightly convicted the accused/revisionist. The conviction of the

revisionist is, therefore, affirmed. Now, this Court has to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence only.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 6 SCC 404 and others has interfered with the order of

High Court, by modifying respective jail sentences of three accused to that already undergone, while enhancing fine amount awarded by High Court,

and also, acquitting the fourth. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

“14. This we are inclined to do for the following reasons:

14.1. First, the incident is of 1998 and we are in 2018. In other words, it is now almost 20 years have passed that this litigation is pending in various

Courts.

14.2. Second, there were seven injuries noticed by the doctor on the body of injured-Tej Singh but the injuries noticed were not very serious in nature

as would be clear from the Doctor's report mentioned above.

14.3. Third, Tej Singh survived leaving no disability much less permanent on his body due to causing of the injuries and lived for twenty years after the

date of alleged incident and died recently in last week as was stated by learned counsel for the appellants.

14.4. Fourth, all the appellants(accused) have undergone almost one year of jail sentence including remission out of the total jail sentence awarded by

the High Court except appellant No.2 â€" Suresh(A-2), who underwent around three months.

14.5. Fifth, all the appellants were first offender and were not found involved in any criminal activity in the last 20 years, though remained on bail

throughout and lastly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to be in Government Service.â€​

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence as well as in view of the dictum of Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Naresh (supra), this Court is also of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist to jail after a

lapse of about 15 years of the incident, as such the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-.

Accordingly, revision is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the revisionist/accused. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence

part of the impugned judgments and orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period of sentence already undergone

alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Ten Thousand) which will be deposited by him before the trial court within a period of two months from today. The

revisionist will be entitled to adjustment of the fine already deposited by him, if any.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for ensuring compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.