SARVJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision, in question, has been preferred by the revisionists, wherein, they have questioned part of the impugned judgment dated 2nd July, 2019, as rendered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (IInd), District Nainital, as rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2015, Sarvjeet Singh and another Vs. State, limited to the extent that the Appellate Court while acquitting the appellants for commissioning of the offences under Sections 324, 325 and 504 of the IPC, had issued a direction to the Trial Court for retrying the Criminal Case No. 2644 of 2006, State Vs. Sarvjeet Singh and another from the stage of its proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the revisionists is from the view point that when earlier too the case was concluded by virtue of an order of conviction dated 2nd July, 2015, the matter was put to challenge in an Appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2013, and the Appellate Court by virtue of the judgment dated 22nd July, 2015, had set aside the then judgment of the Trial Court dated 13th June, 2013 and had remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for its fresh trial. The said order dated 22nd July, 2015, has resulted into the revival of the proceedings of the Trial Court and, consequently, the Trial Court after considering the matter afresh had passed an order on 2nd September, 2015, by virtue of which, the revisionists were yet again were convicted for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and a penalty of Rs.10,000/-each was imposed upon them and for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., they were implicated for the sentence of one year of simple imprisonment, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) Questioning the judgment dated 2nd September, 2015, as rendered in Criminal Case No. 2644 of 2006, a Criminal Appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2015, Sarvjeet Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand was preferred by the revisionists before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, who after considering the respective arguments extended by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the ratio as dealt with in the said judgment, the revisionist had been acquitted, the revisionists but at the time of passing of an order of acquittal, the Appellate Court has simultaneously remitted back the matter once again of Criminal Case No. 2644 of 2006, to be tried afresh from the stage of 313 Cr.P.C.