Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Veeru Koli - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 72 of 2024
Decided On : 03-04-2024
Criminal - Stalking - IPC Sections 323, 354D - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding stalking and physical harm, modifying the sentence based on the nature of the offense and circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist was convicted for stalking and causing simple injuries to the victim and her husband after an incident where he followed the victim and made obscene gestures, leading to a physical altercation.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, considering the nature of the offense and the lack of repeated incidents.
Issues: Whether the sentence imposed on the revisionist was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the offense and the offender's conduct.
Result: The sentence was modified to four months for stalking and one month for causing simple injuries, to run concurrently.
Key Points: - The court modified the sentence: 354D IPC to four months rigorous imprisonment; 323 IPC to one month; both run concurrently. (!) (!) (!) - The conviction for 354D (stalking) and 323 (simple injuries) upheld but with modified sentence; acquittal on 504 IPC. (!) - The judgment emphasizes a balanced sentencing approach considering gravity of offense and offender’s conduct. (!) - The lower court had sentenced 354D to 2 years’ RI with fine and 323 to 6 months’ RI with fine; those were modified. (!) (!) - Facts: incident on 04.11.2014 involving stalking, obscene gestures, and assault with vehicle; victim and husband involved. (!) - The revision was admitted to examine correctness of the sentence; lower court record received. (!) - Prosecution evidence included 5 witnesses; original charges included 354D, 323, and 504; 504 was acquitted. (!) (!) - The court discussed factors in sentencing, including gravity, manner, offender’s position, victim, and circumstances. (!) - The sentence modification results in concurrent running of sentences. (!)
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-
| (a) | Under Section 354D IPC | to undergo 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 months’ additional simple imprisonment. |
| (b) | Under Section 323 IPC | to undergo 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo 1 month’s additional simple imprisonment. |
2. On 18.03.2024, instant revision has been admitted to the limited extent of examining the correctness of the sentence imposed on the revisionist. The lower court record has also been received.
3. According to the prosecution case, on 04.11.2014, when the victim was returning from her work place when she was followed by the applicant. He made obscene gestures and tried to molest the victim and when the victim resisted to it, he abused the victim. It is further the prosecution case that when the husband of the victim reached at the place, the revisionist further abused them and hit them with his car. Based on this FIR, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist and on 05.04.2016, charges under Section 354D, 323 and 504 of IPC was framed against.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, namely, PW1 the victim herself, PW2 the husband of the victim, PW3 Madhu Bora (in fact, she has not supported the prosecution case), PW4 Harish Gautam (he was declared hostile) and PW5 SI Siraj Ahmed, the Investigating Officer. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied the prosecution case and stated that he has falsely been implicated.
5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. It must be noted here that the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Section 504 IPC. The judgment and order passed in the case has been upheld in the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the revisionist may be released on probation.
8. Learned State Counsel would submit that the revisionist has already been in custody in the case for three months and seven days.
9. After recording conviction in the criminal case, one of the toughest tasks is to impose an adequate sentence. There are less guidelines, which may assist the Court to reach proper and adequate sentence. Various factors are taken into custody, which includes the gravity of offence, the nature of offence, the manner in which the offence was done, the gravity of it, the position of the offender, the victim and the attending circumstances.
10. In the instant case, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 354D IPC for stalking. This section reads as follows:-
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of s
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 established that repeated contact with a woman despite her disinterest constitutes stalking under IPC Section 354-D.
The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for a first-time offender convicted of assaulting family members, ordering probation and compensation instead of immediate incarceration.
Sentencing in criminal cases must consider the nature of the offense, the offender's background, and the relationship between the parties involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an attempt to commit an offense under Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code can lead to conviction, even if the offense was not completed.
Convictions for sexual harassment require corroborative evidence beyond mere allegations to meet the legal standards set by IPC.
The court considered the revisionist's personal circumstances and lack of criminal antecedents in reducing the sentence under sections 380 and 411 IPC.
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
