Raju Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal jail revision is preferred by the revisionist through Jail Superintendent, Sub District Jail, Haldwani, District Naintal against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2013, "Raju Bisht vs. State of Uttarkhand" under Section 324 IPC and also against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the revisionist was convicted under Section 324 IPC for one year six months rigorous imprisonment.

Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant lodged an FIR alleging therein that on 10.05.2002 at about 9:30 p.m. his younger brother, namely, Dharmendra was sitting along with revisionist and other person in the shop of video game which is situated at Super Market. The complainant's brother, namely, Pawan Kumar told Dharmendra to not to sit with them and took his brother with him. At the night of about 11:00 hours when the complainant's brother, namely, Pawan Kumar going towards the Super Market then the present revisionist and the other person surrounded him and asked him that why he refused the Dharmendra to sit with them and surrounded his brother and attacked upon him with knife and sword. Then the persons namely, Goldy and Sanjeev rescued the informant's brother and witnessed the incident. Thereafter, the present revisionist and other person left the spot by threatening him for dire consequences.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused revisionist. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

Learned Amicus Curaie 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 under Section 324 IPC is maintained.

Learned Amicus Curiae for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the poor person and he is the only bread earner of his family and the occurrence relates back to year 2002. He submits that the revisionist has already served about nine months six days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the revisionist has served about nine months six days in the jail during the following period-

(i) 11.05.2000 to 08.06.2002 i.e. 27 days.

(ii) 02.07.2012 to 29.01.2013 i.e. 06 months 28 days.

(iii) 30.01.2013 to 23.02.2013 i.e. 23 days.

Since the revisionist has served nine months 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 revisionist, is sufficient to serve the purpose.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the revisionist is the poor person, 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 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.