IMPORTANT POINT
Sentencing in criminal cases must consider the nature of the offense, the offender's background, and the relationship between the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The instant revision is preferred against the following:-

(A) Judgment and order dated 04.06.2019, passed in Criminal Case No.377 of 2017, State Vs. Manoj Kumar, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, but he has been convicted for the offences under Section 325 IPC, and sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-. It has further been stipulated that in default of payment of fine, the revision shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. And;

(B) Judgment and order dated 12.12.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No.191 of 2019, Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Second Additonal Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 04.06.2019, passed in the case has been upheld.

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

3. This revision has yet not been admitted. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the quantum of sentence may be revisited and its legality, correctness and propriety may be examined. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, the revision is being heard and finally decided at the stage of admission itself.

4. According to the prosecution case, the PW1, Omprakash Singh, the informant, was the Village Pradhan at the relevant time. On 25.09.2016, he was inspecting a road under construction when suddenly, according to the FIR, at 11:30 AM, the revisionist appeared there and started attacking the informant with kicks fists and punch. Somehow the informant was saved. The FIR was lodged. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC against the revisionist, which is the basis of the case.

5. On 05.08.2017, charge under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC were framed against the revisionist, to which he denied and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Omprakash Singh, PW2, Kamal Singh, PW3 Harish Kumar, PW4 Sompal, PW5 SI Rewati Nandan, PW6 Dr. Dhirendra Mohan, and PW7 SI Madan Singh Bisht.

7. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he is innocent and has been wrongly implicated.

8. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist unsuccessfully preferred the appeal.

9. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the revisionist has been in custody for more than 18 months now; he is not a previous convict; he should now be released for the period of custody, which he has already undergone in the case.

10. Learned State Counsel would submit that the revisionist has already undergone 1 Year 8 months and 12 days custody in the case; he is not a previous convict.

11. PW1, Omprakash Singh, is the informant of the case. In his evidence, according to him, on 25.09.2016, when he was inspecting an under-construction road, he was attacked by the revisionist, due to which he sustained some injuries. He was saved by some witnesses.

12. PW2, Kamal Singh, and PW3, Harish Kumar, have supported the prosecution case.

13. PW4, Sompal, has also stated that on the date of incident, he had seen the informant below a motorcycle, and the neighbourer had saved PW1, Omprakash Singh, from the revisionist.

14. PW5, S.I. Rewati Nandan is the Investigating Officer.

15. PW6, Dr. Dhirendra Mohan, has proved the injury report. According to him, the third rib of PW1, Omprakash Singh, had a fracture, which was grievous.

16. PW7, S.I. Madan Singh Bisht, has also proved certain documents.

17. The trial court has considered the evidence quite in detail and has also considered the arguments and convicted the revisionist under Section 325 I