KHEMKARAN GANGWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List has been revised, and even in the revised call, none appears before the Court to argue the Revision. Since it is a Criminal Revision challenging the impugned orders of conviction, and because the Criminal Revision cannot be dismissed in default, hence, this Court proceeds to decide the Revision on its merits after going through the record and hearing the Government Advocate.

(2.) This is a Criminal Revision, which has been preferred by the revisionist being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 12th June, 2015, as well as the judgment dated 9th December, 2010, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar as well as the learned Judicial Magistriact, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar respectively in Criminal Case No. 2209 of 2008, State Vs. Khemkaran Gangwar as well as the Appellate Court's judgment as rendered on 12th June, 2015 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2010, Khemkaran Gangwar Vs. State of Uttarakhand. By virtue of the impugned orders under challenge, the revisionist has been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 452, 325, 504 and 506 IPC and, accordingly, he has directed the revisionist to undergo a simple imprisonment of six months under Section 452 and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against him; for the offence under Section 325 IPC, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against him, for the offence under Section 504, he has been directed to undergo imprisonment of one month and for the offence under Section 506 IPC, the revisionist has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of four months.

(3.) After having considered the order of conviction and its propriety as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order of conviction dated 9th December, 2012, the Judicial Magistrate has considered the propriety of the incident, which has occurred on 5th October, 2008, wherein, it is contended that the complainant was assaulted by the revisionist after entering into the house forcefully and by inflicting blows upon him after taking out a burning wood from the fire place.