IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that sentencing should consider the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The instant revision is preferred against the following:-

(A) judgment and order dated 13.11.2014, passed in Criminal Case No.480 of 2010, State Vs. Nar Singh Gupta, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, District Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 323 and 452 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 323 IPC, 3 months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 10 days.

(ii) Under Section 452 IPC, 6 months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(B) Judgment and order dated 22.02.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2014, Nar Singh Gupta Vs. State, by the court of 1st Additonal District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar (“the appeal”), by which, the appeal has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed in the case, has been upheld.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The instant revision has been admitted to the extent of examining the correctness of sentence.

4. According to the FIR, on 10.01.2007, the revisionist and his family members attacked the son and other family members of the informant, due to which they sustained injuries. The FIR was lodged by the informant on 11.01.2007, at 2:00 PM, at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, based on which Case Crime No.10 of 2007, under Sections 452, 323 and 506 IPC was lodged against the revisionist and other co-accused. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offences under Sections 452, 323 and 506 IPC, which is the basis of the case. On 27.09.2008, charges under Sections 452, 323 and 506 IPC were framed against the revisionist, to which he denied and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 7 witnesses, namely, PW1 Paras, PW2 Yasodara, PW3 Smt. Radhika Devi, PW4 Satyaprakash, PW5 Sumitra, PW6 Dr. R.S. Chauhan, and PW7 S.I. Vijay Bharti.

6. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, the witnesses have falsely given evidence against the revisionist.

7. After hearing, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore on 13.11.2014. This judgment was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the incident took place 17 years ago. The applicant has almost completed the sentence. He is in custody since 29.01.2024. Therefore, he would submit that the sentence may be restricted to the period of custody the revisionist has already undergone.

9. Learned State Counsel, under instructions, would submit that the revisionist has almost completed the sentence. He would be released shortly.

10. Sentencing is one of the tasks after conviction, which requires a lot of deliberation. While awarding sentence, various factors are taken into consideration, which includes the position of the victim and the accused, the circumstances under which the offence took place, etc.

11. The FIR records that the son of the informant used to take his thella of eggs through a gali, where the incident took place. It appears that it was a small dispute, which had taken this turn.

12. Having considered the nature of offence, the social status of the parties, including the revisionist and the victim, and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be better served, if the revisionist is sentenced to the period of custody, which he has already undergone in the instant case.

13. The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 323 and 452 IPC, as recorded in the case, and upheld in the appeal is confirmed.

14. The revisionist is sentenced to the period of custody, which he ha