VIJAY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in appeal no.101 of 2006 as well as the judgment and order dated 6.10.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.214 of 2004, whereby said courts have convicted the revisionist under Section 411 of I.P.C. and have sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, revisionist has to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17.11.2003 at about 08:00 pm, when the complainant was going to liquor shop by his scooter, four miscreants, two in scooter and other two in motorcycle, came in front of the complainant and asked him to stop. The miscreants snatched Rs.5,000/- and mobile phone from him and fled away from spot. With these averment, the complainant lodged the first information report at P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar. On the basis of F.I.R., Chik F.I.R. was prepared and case crime no.140/2003 was registered against the accused/revisionist. Investigation of the case was carried out and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-revisionist and two other co-accused in the court. On 21.07.2004, charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 392 and 411 of IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On denial, trial begun. In order to prove its case, prosecution got examined as many as six prosecution witnesses viz. PW1 complainant Mahal Singh, PW2 Constable Manohar Singh, PW3 Constable Sushil Joshi, PW4 Asharam, PW5 Constable Kali Charan and PW6 Assistant Sub Inspector T.S. Rana. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the revisionist-accused and co-accused persons were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations made against them. After hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence, trial court convicted the revisionist-accused under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Co-accused Vinod Kumar and Anil Kumar were acquitted by the trial court, giving benefit of doubt. Feeling aggrieved, revisionist-accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Almora. Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haridwar, vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2010, dismissed the appeal of the revisionist.

(3.) Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the revisionist would confine his argument qua the quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the incident relates to the year 2003 and almost 16 years have passed till date. Since then the revisionist is facing mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal case against him. He also submits that the revisionist has also remained in jail for a considerable period. He, thus, prayed that, in such circumstances, a lenient view may be taken by the Court by reducing the sentence of the revisionist to the period already undergone.