The court considered the revisionist's personal circumstances and lack of criminal antecedents in reducing the sentence under sections 380 and 411 IPC.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in criminal case no. 1057 of 2016, Salman vs. State, whereby the trial court has convicted the revisionists under sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- under 457 IPC; three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 380 IPC; three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00/- under section 411 IPC; in default of payment of fine the revisionist to undergo two months additional simple imprisonment, as well as the order dated 28.10.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2016, Salman vs. State of Uttarakhand whereby the learned Appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts, in brief, are that PW1 Virendra Rai submitted a written report (Ex. A1) with P.S. Jhankiya, Udham Singh Nagar on 25.04.2016. On the basis of said information, chik FIR (Ex. A3) was lodged with police station on the very same day. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet (Ex. A6) was submitted under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC. The Magistrate took the cognizance on 21.06.2016 and after compliance of the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the concerned Magistrate framed the charges under section 457, 380 and 411 IPC. The revisionist denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced PW1 Virendra Rai, who narrated the story and also proved the written report submitted by him, PW2 Nilima Devi, PW3 Suresh Singh, PW4 Bhagat Singh, PW5 Ganesh Tamta, PW6 ASI Gopal Ram Arya, I.O., who recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex. A6) .

4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the revisionist was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that the prosecution has produced false evidence against him. However, no evidence in defence was adduced.

5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court has convicted the revisionists vide order dated 28.09.2016 and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred appeal no. 183 of 2016, Salman Vs. State. The appellate court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Feeling aggrieved by both the decisions, the present revision has been preferred.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State through video conferencing.

7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has fairly submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court has rightly convicted the revisionist based on evidence. There is no illegality in the impugned findings regarding conviction. The revisionist is the only bread earner of his family. At the time of occurrence he was just 21 years old. The trial court has convicted the appellant in abovementioned offences and sentenced him three years rigorous imprisonment against which he already served about two years in jail. He prayed that the Court, while upholding the revisionist's conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the revisionist and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone.

8. Learned counsel for the State submitted that no minimum sentence is prescribed in the above mentioned offences and two years' imprisonment is sufficient.

9. I have also gone through the evidence on record, and came to this conclusion that both the courts below have rightly convicted the revisionist based on sufficient evidence, as produced by the prosecution. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned