Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Sangrammu Lal and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 340 of 2013
Decided on : 10-08-2023
Revision - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 147, 323 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused persons under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC. The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons. The court also converted the sentence of imprisonment into a fine considering the socio-economic status of the accused persons.
Fact of the Case:
The accused persons were convicted under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC for assaulting the complainant and his family. The trial court found the accused persons guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of the injured witnesses and medical reports, supported the conviction of the accused persons. The court also noted that there were no grounds to interfere with the judgments and orders passed by the lower courts.
Issues: The main issue was the conviction of the accused persons under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC and the appeal filed challenging the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction based on the unimpeachable evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the medical reports. The court also considered the socio-economic status of the accused persons and converted the sentence of imprisonment into a fine.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision, converting the sentence of imprisonment into a fine for the accused persons. The lower court record was returned for necessary follow-up actions.
JUDGMENT :
The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2011, “Sangrammu Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand”, whereby, the judgment and order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag, in Criminal Case No. 79 of 2010, “State Vs. Sangrammu Lal and Others”, convicting the revisionists/accused persons under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC, was upheld and the appeal filed by the revisionists/accused persons was dismissed.
2. The revisionists/accused persons were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 147 of IPC, with default stipulation, one month additional simple imprisonment each and
3. The brief facts of this case are that complainant-Tej Singh and the accused persons are the residents of same village. On 31.07.2006, complainant Tej Singh had filed a complaint against the accused persons Sangramu Lal, Chhota Lal, Indra Lal, Kunwar Lal and Smt. Jasoda Devi under Sections 147, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC in the Court, in which 15.09.2006 was fixed for their appearance and summons were issued against them. The accused persons bore enmity with the complainant and his family and on 31.08.2006 at 08:00 PM, the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant with an intention to kill the complainant and they started beating him. When the wife of complainant, Smt. Basanti Devi intervened, accused Chhota Lal and others along with Jashoda Devi, Bongali Devi, Moti Devi, Km. Kutani, Kunwari Devi, Km. Rupoti, wife of Chhota Lal suddenly rushed upon her and beat her badly. Shyam Lal, Kalam Singh, Geena Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Gabar Singh and other people saved them from the accused. During the course of incident, the accused persons snatched Rs.3000/- from the pocket of the complainant. They also looted Torch, Flour, Rice and Rs.8000/- in cash from the house of Shyam Lal. The complainant along with other villagers went to Patwari Chowki for lodging the report the same night, but the Patwari and his peon were fully intoxicated and so they told them to come next day. As the incident was of the night, so the medical examination of the injured could not be conducted promptly. Sri Abbal Singh Gram Prahari also remained with them in the night. On the next day the complainant and his wife came to Rudraprayag where they got themselves medically examined, got their medical certificates and then moved an application before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag.
4. On the basis of the complaint dated 01.09.2006 filed by informant/complainant in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, a chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5) was lodged in Patwari Circle Kot-Bangar, District Rudraprayag on 13.09.2006 at 10:00 AM, against the revisionist/accused-Sangrammu Lal and 12 other persons and on the basis of which, a Case Crime No.1 of 2006 was registered against the revisionists/accused and other persons under Sections 147, 307, 394, 395 and 450 of IPC.
5. The investigation ensued by the Patwari concern and finally a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-4) was filed on 02.03.2008, only against the revisionists and one Bheem Raj Lal S/o Shyam Lal under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Rudraprayag took cognizance upon the charge-sheet and after compliance of the formalities of supplying the papers of the prosecution to the accused persons, charges under sections 147, 504, 323 and 506 of IPC were framed against the revisionists/accused on 04.11.2009.
7. The revisionists/accused persons pleaded not guilty and prayed for their trial.
8. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 Tej Singh (Complainant), PW-2 Shyam Lal S/o Saguni, PW-3 Ranjeet Singh, PW-4 Gheena, PW-5 D
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to convert the sentence of imprisonment into a fine based on the socio-economic status of the accused persons.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Sections 323, 504, 341, and 509, while modifying the sentence to align with the interests of justice.
The court considered the revisionist's personal circumstances and lack of criminal antecedents in reducing the sentence under sections 380 and 411 IPC.
The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for a first-time offender convicted of assaulting family members, ordering probation and compensation instead of immediate incarceration.
The court established that sentencing should consider the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the parties involved.
The court considered the revisionist's request for a lenient view due to the matter relating to the year 2006 and his health condition, and accordingly, altered/modified the sentence imposed.
Sentencing in criminal cases must consider the nature of the offense, the offender's background, and the relationship between the parties involved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
