Ramesh Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand

Narayan Singh Dhanik, J

Appellant has preferred this appeal from jail challenging the judgment and order dated 26.6.2014, passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2014 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees three thousand.

Facts, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged on 17.10.2013 by PW1 Smt. Sarojini Devi alleging that at 7 o'clock on 16.10.2013, appellant attacked her husband (Ram Lal) and inflicted serious injuries to him and also snatched rupees eight thousand from him. After investigation, police submitted the chargesheet for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 504 and 506 IPC. The trial commenced and the charges for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 504 and 506 IPC were framed against the appellant.

The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Injured was examined as PW2. Except PW2, there was no eyewitness of the alleged incident. The trial court did not find any of the charges levelled against the appellant as proved and accordingly acquitted him of all the charges framed against him. However, the trial court held that on the basis of the medical evidence and the deposition of the injured, offence under Section 325 IPC is proved against the appellant and, accordingly, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees three thousand.

Learned Amicus Curiae contended before this Court that except the injured, there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident. He further contends that the deposition of injured is not reliable inasmuch as he himself admitted that at the time of alleged incident, he was under the influence of alcohol.

Learned State Counsel disputed the contentions of appellant. She submitted that on the basis of the statement of the injured and the medical report and the deposition of PW4 Dr. S.N. Pande, PW6 Dr. Abdul Rauf and PW7 Dr. Krishn Singh Negi, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.

At this stage, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and he has already undergone 22 months in the jail. Therefore, considering the period already undergone and also considering that the incident took place when the appellant and the injured both were in the drunken state, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Learned State Counsel do admit that the appellant has served almost 22 months in the jail.

Considering the submissions of learned Amicus Curiae and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the appeal 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 appellant. The amount of fine is left intact. The impugned judgment and order sands modified to the extent indicated above.

The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the LCR, be sent back.