Vijay Kumar vs State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2001, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in criminal appeal No. 30 of 1997, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, III, Dehradun) against the revisionist Vijay Kumar in criminal case No. 156 of 1996 in respect of offences punishable u/s 324 and 452 I.P.C. The trial court has sentenced the convict (present petitioner) for a period of three months simple imprisonment on each count.

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

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.08.1993, complainant Laxman Singh (P.W.1) lodged a first information report at about 22:15 P.M. alleging that at 9:00 P.M. on that day revisionist/accused Vijay Kumar alongiwth others entered in the house of the complainant and stabbed him with knife. The injured raised alarm. Apart from his wife P.W.2 Smt. Rekha and his daughter P.W.4 Nirja, other villagers also saw the accused running away. With the help of the villagers Vijay Kumar (revisionist) was arrested. He was taken to the police station where the report was lodged. Crime No. 300 of 1993, was registered against accused Vijay Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable u/s 147, 452, 323 and 324 I.P.C. The injured was medically examined by Dr. J.S. Negi (P.W.5). After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the revisionist Vijay Kumar and others for their trial in respect of offences punishable u/s 147, 452, 323 and 324 I.P.C. After giving necessary copies, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 29.11.1995, framed charge of offences punishable u/s 147, 452, 324 and 323 I.P.C., against the revisionist Vijay Kumar and others namely Rameshwar Dutt, Ramswaroop and Ajay Kumar. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Laxman Singh (injured and complainant), P.W.2 Smt. Rekha (eye witness), P.W.3 Ramesh Kumar, P.W.5 Nirja (another eye witness) and P.W.5 Dr. J.S. Negi, (who medically examined the injured). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused in reply of which he alleged that he has been implicated falsely due to enmity. The trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, III, Dehradun) vide his order dated 06.08.1997, convicted the revisionist Vijay Kumar u/s 324 and 452 I.P.C. The other accused were acquitted of the charge. After hearing on sentence, convict Vijay Kumar (revisionist) was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months u/s 452 I.P.C., and for a period of three months u/s 324 I.P.C. It was further directed by the trial that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by said order, convict Vijay Kumar filed criminal appeal No. 30 of 1997, before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, to whom appeal was transferred, vide his impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2001, affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. Hence this revision.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the revisionist and went through the statement of the witnesses recorded by the trial court. The testimony of P.W.1 Laxman Singh (injured) is natural and trust worthy which is supported by medical evidence on record. His statement is further corroborated by statement of other eye witness Smt. Rekha (P.W.2) and his daughter Nirja (P.W.4). The incident is of the night and took place inside the house, as such, the presence of the aforesaid two witnesses is natural and trust worthy. The medical officer (P.W.5 J.S. Negi) has stated that he found as many as six injuries in the person of injured Laxman Singh, out of which three were incised wounds.

Having gone through the evidence on record, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the trial court in recording conviction of the revisionist Vijay Kumar u/s 324 and 452 I.P.C. The appellate court has rightly affirmed the conviction of the revisionist Vijay Kumar.

Further, on the point of sentence, this Court finds that the revisionist has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about one month during the trial and pendency of this revision, after his appeal was decided. As such, after more than 15 years of the incident, this Court finds no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail, and the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.

Accordingly, the revision is disposed of affirming the conviction recorded by the trial court and the appellate court against the revisionist Vijay Kumar u/s 324 and 452 I.P.C., but the sentence awarded to the convict/revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone. He is on bail, he need not to surrender. Lower court record be sent back.