JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - The present jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Kotdwar, in S.T. No.25 of 2015, State vs. Deepak Singh @ Deepu, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 457 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000 with default stipulation; he was also convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years' R.I. with fine of Rs.23,000/-; in default stipulation. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

2. In short, case of the prosecution is that PW-1 Mahindra Singh submitted an information Ex. Ka-1 with the Police Station, Dhumakot, Pauri Garhwal on 14.06.2015 about the incident. On the basis of said information, a Chick FIR Ex.Ka-3 was lodged with the police station on the very same day; accordingly, G.D. Ex.Ka-4 was prepared; the injured PW-2 Ankita was medically examined by attending Doctor; accordingly, medical report Ex.Ka-2 was prepared; during the investigation a weapon was recovered from the possession of the accused; accordingly, recovery memo Ex.Ka-5 was prepared. After investigation, charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-16) was submitted. Accordingly, after compliance of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the court of sessions. The Sessions Judge took the cognizance and accordingly charges were framed under Sections 457, 307, 506 IPC on 29.09.2015. The appellant denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.

3. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution produced PW1- Mahinder Singh (informant), PW2 Ankita (injured), PW3 Rameshwari Devi, PW4 Dr. Tanveer, who prepared the medical report Ex. Ka 2, PW5 Dinesh Singh Panwar, PW6 Vijera Singh, PW7 Ramlal, PW8 Himashu Sexena, PW9 N.K. Bachkoti.

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidences and stated that the prosecution produced false evidences against him. However, no evidence was produced in defence.

5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, by order dated 04.06.2016, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 457 and 307 IPC, and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the judgment.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State.

8. It is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that he does not want to argue the case on merits as the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on sufficient material on record; he fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2015; there is no criminal antecedent against him; the trial Court convicted and sentenced him ten years' imprisonment against which the appellant has already served more than five years, hence the Court may kindly consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the State also submits that the appellant was arrested on 15.06.2015 and the appellant has already served more than five years in jail, which is sufficient and the sentence can be reduced to the extent of period already undergone.

10. I have also gone through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and come to this conclusion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant based on proper evidence and there is no infirmity in the impugned findings. Since the matter relates to the year 2015; the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent in his past life, and he is not required in any other criminal case except the one at hand. Accordingly, looking to the nature of the offence, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the sentence of the appellant from 10 years to the extent of the period has already undergone u/s 307 IPC; as regard to the offence