The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for a first-time offender convicted of assaulting family members, ordering probation and compensation instead of immediate incarceration.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 16.07.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 973 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Raj Kumar, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Tanakpur, District Champawat (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 323 , 325 and 427 of IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 323 IPC - to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of ten days.

(ii) Under Section 325 IPC - to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(iii) Under Section 427 IPC - to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 17.09.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2022, Raj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Sessions Judge, Champawat, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order passed in the case was confirmed.

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

3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by PW1 Nema Devi. According to which, on 16.09.2020, at 8:15 P.M., the appellant in an inebriated condition came to the rooftop of the house of the informant and started abusing her. He attacked the informant and her daughter with bricks and damaged one of their E-rickshaws bearing Registration No. UK03-ER-0468. The informant and her daughter sustained injuries. Meanwhile, the husband of the informant, who is PW4 Babu Ram was also informed. He rushed to his home and tried to save his family members. Meanwhile, the revisionist hit him on his head by a brick, due to which he sustained serious injuries. Based on the FIR, Case Crime No. 109 of 2020, under Section 323 , 504, 427, 354 IPC was lodged at Police Station Tanakpur and the investigation proceeded. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan. The injured was medically examined. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist under Section 323 , 325, 427 and 504 IPC. The cognizance was taken in the matter. On 07.04.2022, charges under Section 323 , 325, 427 and 504 IPC were framed against the revisionist, to which he denied and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, namely, PW1 Nema Devi, the informant, PW2 Constable Trilok Chand, PW3 Neelam, PW4 Babu Ram, PW5 Punam, PW6 HCMT Devi Dutt Joshi, PW7 Dr. Sehzad Khan, PW8 S.I. Nishu Gautam and PW9 Rajesh Kumar Mahajan. In his defence, the revisionist had examined DW1 Smt. Sushila.

5. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the revisionist has stated that the witnesses have falsely deposed against him.

6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and orders, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore, which was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal. Hence, the revision.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist and the victim all are family members. In fact, the revisionist is younger brother of PW4 Babu Ram. They are residing in the same village. Therefore, instead of sentencing, the revisionist could be released on pr