Sunder Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, in criminal appeal No. 34 of 1999, whereby said court has affirmed the conviction of the revisionists, Sunder Singh, Dev Singh, Anar Singh, Basant Singh, Dhirendra Singh, Tasbir Singh, Smt. Bijana, Smt. Narmada and Smt. Balama, relating to offences punishable u/s 147, 323/149 and 342/149 IPC. The revisionist No. 1 Sunder Singh, has been further held guilty of offence punishable u/s 325 IPC. His sentence awarded by the trial court is also affirmed. However, sentence of other accused was modified by the appellate court and each one of them was directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 147 I.P.C. fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 323/149 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 342/149 I.P.C.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

Prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Tasbir Singh (PW1) was sitting in front of his house in Village Pokhariyal Gaon, Newsari on 13.11.1993, when the accused/revisionists came there together and assaulted the complainant and his brother Vikram Singh (PW2). In the incident Vikram Singh suffered grievous injury with the blow given by the reverse side of the axe by accused/revisionist Sunder Singh. First information report of the incident was got registered with the Patwari Chawki, Newsari. (In Uttarakhand hills under U.P. Government Notification No. 494/VIII-418 dated 07.03.1916, certain Revenue Officials are give police powers). The Investigation Officer, after investigation submitted charge sheet against the revisionists for trial in respect of the offences punishable u/s 147, 323/149, 342/149, 447/149, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, before whom the case was pending, after giving necessary copies framed charge of aforesaid offences against the accused (present revisionists) who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Jaber Singh (complainant), P.W.2 Vikram Singh (injured), P.W.3 Vijendra Singh, P.W.4 Atar Singh, P.W.5 Mamraj Singh, P.W.6 Balbir Singh, P.W.7 Dr.K.P. Joshi, P.W.8 Dr. Shashank Dwivedi, P.W.9 Kundan Lal Semwal and P.W.10 Dr. S.P. Tiwari. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused in reply to which they pleaded to be false. The trial court after hearing the parties found all the accused including revisionists, guilty of charge of offences punishable u/s 147, 323/149, 325/149 and 342/149. Each one of the accused/revisionists were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment and also directed to pay fine. Aggrieved by said order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.09.1999, in criminal case No. 384 of 1995, the convicts preferred appeal No. 34 of 1999, before the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. Said appellate court after hearing the parties, acquitted Km. Maya Devi, Km. Indira Devi and Km. Rampiyari, but affirmed the conviction of the accused/revisionists. However, the sentence of the accused/revisionists Sunder Singh, Dev Singh, Anar Singh, Basant Singh, Dhirendra Singh, Tasbir Singh, Smt. Bijana, Smt. Narmada and Smt. Balama, modified and each one of them was directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 147 I.P.C. fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 323/149 I.P.C and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 342/149 I.P.C. However, the sentence of accused/revisionist Sunder Singh u/s 325 was not disturbed. Hence this revision.

I have gone through the statement of the witnesses, medical report and other papers on the record. It is not necessary for this Court in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence at length. On going through the evidence on record this Court is satisfied that the courts below have not committed any error of law in coming to the conclusion that as against the accused/revisionists, the charge stands proved in respect of offences punishable u/s 147, 323/149, 342/149 I.P.C. As, against the revisionist Sunder Singh, charge stands proved u/s 325 I.P.C. also for causing grievous injury to Vikram Singh with the reverse side of axe used in the crime by him. The lower appellate court has already taken lenient view in awarding sentence of fine only, to all the accused/revisionists in respect of offences punishable u/s 147, 323/149 and 342/149 IPC.

As to the sentence awarded to Sunder Singh, on charge of offence punishable u/s 325 IPC, it has come on the record that he had been in jail for more than one month and ten days, during the period before he was granted bail by this Court in this revision.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of litigation, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending accused Sunder Singh again to jail again to serve out the remaining part of the sentence u/s 325 I.P.C. Therefore, his sentence on that count deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.

Accordingly, the revision of all the accused/revisionists except that of Sunder Singh is dismissed. Revision of accused/revisionist Sunder Singh is also dismissed, so far as it relates to his conviction and sentence recorded by the appellate court but his sentence on the charge of 325 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone. With this modification in the sentence of Sunder Singh, the revision stands disposed of.