Vishal vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11.01.2022, passed by F.T.S.C./Additional Sessions Judge Roorkee, District Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2020, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Vishal”, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years six months along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months.

Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that on 14.01.2020 at 14:38 hours an FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim. According to the First Information Report, the present appellant had caught the informant’s minor sister, aged about 16 years, at 1:30 hours on 14.01.2020.

After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 354 of IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act, 2012”).

The charges under Section 354 of IPC and Section 7/8 of the Act, 2012 were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The learned trial court recorded the statements of seven prosecution witnesses.

The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. He denied all the incriminating evidence against him.

The appellant has not adduced any defence evidence.

The learned trial court appraised the evidence, adduced before it, and held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of IPC, whereas, the appellant has been acquitted from the charge of Section 7/8 of the Act, 2012.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, awarded by the learned trial court, the appellant appealed to this Court.

Heard Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant does not want to press his conviction order. The appellant wants to advance his arguments only on his sentence, passed by the learned trial court.

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the present matter is pending since 14.01.2020, when the First Information Report of this matter was registered; the appellant has no criminal history; according to the report of the Probation Officer, Haridwar, the appellant has no criminal history/criminal antecedents and the appellant has already been served around eight months of his sentence. He further submitted that according to the report of the Superintendent of Sub-Jail Roorkee, the conduct of the appellant is satisfactory. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant requested to give the appellant the benefit of the probation upto three years.

After advancing the said submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant requested to alter the sentence and give benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant have not been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the State. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that in compliance of the order dated 06.06.2022 of this Court, a report of the Probation Officer, Haridwar has been received and according to this report, no criminal history/criminal antecedents/incriminating material are found against the appellant. He further submitted that according to the report dated 26.05.2022 of the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Roorkee, the conduct of the appellant is satisfactory.

The present matter is pending since 14.01.2020, when the First Information Report was lodged. The appellant has no criminal history/criminal antecedents. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. The report of the Probation Officer does not disclose any incriminating material against the appellant, and, according to the report of the concerned Jail, the conduct of the appellant is satisfactory.

Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, it would be appropriate that the sentence, passed by the trial court, should be altered and the benefit of probation should be granted to the appellant. Consequently, without altering the findings of the trial court, the nature of the sentence is being altered.

Resultantly, the appellant-Vishal is released on probation of good conduct for three years, on his entering into a bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to appear and receive sentence, when he called upon during such period. In the meantime, the appellant is directed to keep the peace and be of good behavior.

The appellant-Vishal is directed to appear before the Probation Officer, Haridwar within a week from today.

The Registry is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the Superintendant, Sub-Jail Roorkee as well as to the Probation Officer, Haridwar forthwith for necessary action.

The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.