Sanjay Rathore And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

R.C. Khulbe, J

This appeal, preferred by the appellants u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.11.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/III F.T.C. Dehradun, in Session Trial No. 147 of 2000, State vs. Sanjay and others, whereby the Court below convicted the appellants/accused- Sanjay Rathore, Deepak @ Bhuri and Khyali Ram under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo seven years'' R.I. each along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and further convicting the appellant no.1 Sanjay Rathore under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year and six months' R.I. along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

Facts, in nutshell, are that on 28.05.1999 one Bharat Singh S/o Nand Ram lodged a written report with the police of P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun with the allegation that he is the resident of Badonwala, Arcadia Grant, Derhadun and he is posted as Head Master in Primary School, East Hopetown. On 27.05.1999 at 6:00 PM, his younger son-Arun was working in his field. At that time Amrit Lal, Satish his brother Bhatt, Sanjay Rathore and Prem Darshan, Dehradun came there and started beating his son without any rhyme and reason, as a result of which, he received grievous injuries. Somehow, he reached the house drenched with blood. Seeing his critical condition, his other son was taking him to Government Hospital, Premnagar for treatment and also to lodge the report. At that time Deepak @ Bhuri, Sany Rathor and Khyali Ram and threatened him that if he lodges the report against them, he will face the same consequence and after hurling filthy abuses started giving him knife blows. This incident took place at Premnagar at 9:00 PM. On raising alarm, these persons fled away from the spot leaving his son Parvesh in injured state, who was got admitted by the local inhabitants in Doon Hospital and the other son Arun was got medically examined in Government Hospital, Premnagar. Prayed that legal recourse be taken against these persons.

On the basis of the above report, the case was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer, during investigation, inspecting the place of occurrence and after completion of investigation; he accordingly submitted charge-sheet against the accused.

The case was, accordingly, committed to the court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Learned court below, accordingly, framed the Charge against the appellants. The charge was read over and explained to the appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses, namely, PW1 Arun, PW2 Pravesh Kumar, PW3 Bharat Singh, PW4 Dr. G.P. Dimri, PW5- Dr. P.K. Nautiyal, PW6 Constable 56 CP Mohan Singh, PW7 S.I. R.P. Purohit and PW-8 Dr.Rakesh Goyal.

Thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations made against them. However, in defence the accused persons have examined DW-1 CP Sandeep Kumar, DW-2 Prashant Thapa and DW-3 Amrit Lal.

The trial court, having perused the entire material made available on record, vide judgment and order under appeal, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved, appellants have preferred present appeal.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire material available on the record.

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC are perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also does not want lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court may be reduced. The reasons shown, for such a prayer, 20 years have elapsed since the incident took place; there is no intention to kill the injured person, there is no criminal history against them; and lastly, the appellants were sentenced for seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellants to one year and six months' R.I instead of seven years R.I.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is partly allowed. The conviction part of the appellant under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC are left intact. However, the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to the appellants by the Court below, is hereby reduced to one year and six months' R.I instead of seven years R.I. u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC only. The sentence awarded by the lower court under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC will remain intact.

It is, however, clarified that the period already undergone by the appellants shall be adjusted from the sentence, as imposed/modified by this Court.

A copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below for compliance.