Advocates:
['RAJ KUMAR SINGH', '', 'RADHA ARYA', 'G A']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2019

Mahavir Prasad Bahuguna

….Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

....Respondent

Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, DAG for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant revision has been preferred against the judgment

and order dated 22.11.2018, passed in Criminal Case No. 2455 of

2003, State Vs. Mahavir Prasad Bahuguna, by the court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun (for short “the case”). By this

judgment and order, the revisionist has been convicted under

Sections 324, 354 and 506 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

“1. Under Section 324 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of

two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Under Section 354 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of

one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

3. Under Section 506 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six months.

There are directions for further imprisonment, in case default of

payment of fine is made”.

This judgment and order dated 22.11.2018 was

challenged by the revisionist in Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2018,

Mahavir Prasad Bahuguna Vs. State of Uttarakhand, in the court of

Additional Sessions Judge 7^th, Dehradun (for short “the appeal”). On

25.04.2019, the appeal was dismissed. This judgement and order is

also impugned.

2.

Prosecution case as necessary to decide this revision

briefly stated is that the victim was running a shop in Mussoorie

2

market. She had old acquaintance with the revisionist. On

31.07.2003, at 11:00 in the morning, when the victim was coming to

market, on the way, the revisionist followed her on his motorcycle,

held her forcefully and threw some inflammable substance on her. A

report was lodged on 01.08.2003 at Police Station Mussoorie. In the

report, the victim has stated that in fact, revisionist would threaten

her every now and then. On the date of incident, the victim got

herself medically examined. After investigation, charge sheet was

submitted under Sections 324, 354, 504 and 506 IPC against the

revisionist and proceedings of the case were instituted. On

12.04.2005, charges were framed under Sections 324, 354, 504 and

506 IPC, to which, the revisionist denied and claimed trial.

Prosecution examined only three witnesses. The revisionist was

examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to him, for political reasons, he has been falsely

implicated. By the impugned judgment and order, learned trial court

convicted the revisionist, as stated hereinbefore and his conviction

was upheld in the appeal. Aggrieved, the revision.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video

conferencing and perused the record.

4.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that the

revision is a 66 years old man. Injuries are superficial on the victim.

Therefore, the revisionist may be released on probation or may be

sentenced to the term of sentence which he has already undergone.

Learned counsel has also raised following points in his arguments:-

i.

The clothes worn by the victim were not sent for

forensic examination;

ii.

Medical Officer, who examined the victim has not been

examined at trial.

iii.

The substance thrown on the victim was never

recovered by the Investigating Officer.

3

iv.

The FIR is after thought because according to it, the

victim consulted other persons.

v.

In FIR it is not stated that sister of the victim was with

her when the substance was thrown on her.

5.

On behalf of the State, it is argued that it is a very

heinous offence and it is not a case in which the revisionist may be

given benefit of the provision of probation. It is argued that it is a

case of acid attack.

6.

Although, at this stage, learned counsel for the

revisionist would object to it saying