Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand

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 3 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 4 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, 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 probation of good conduct.

8. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned judgment and orders are in accordance with law. They do not warrant any interference.

9. This is a revision. The scope of revision is quite limited to the extent of examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the impugned judgment and order. 5

10. PW1 Nema Devi is the injured. She has supported the prosecution story. According to her, on

16.09.2020, the revisionist attacked her and her daughter. They were attacked by the bricks also. Their E-rickshaw was damaged and when her husband came, he was hit by a brick on his head, due to which, he sustained injuries. According to this witness, in fact, the revisionist had attacked her daughter with Patli due to which she suffered fracture.

11. PW2 Constable Trilok Chand has lodged the FIR in the Police Station. He has proved the other documents also.

12. PW3 Neelam is another injured, who daughter of PW1 Nema Devi and PW4 Babu Ram. She has supported the prosecution case.

13. PW4 Babu Ram has also supported the prosecution case and corroborated the statement of the PW1 Nema Devi.

14. PW5 Punam is another daughter of PW1 Nema Devi and PW4 Babu Ram. She has also supported the prosecution case. According to her, she also sustained injury on her hand. 6

15. PW6 Devi Dutt Joshi has examined the E-rickshaw, which was damaged by the revisionist. According to him, it was damaged.

16. PW7 Dr. Sehzad Khan has examined the injured Punam and Babu Ram and has proved the medical reports. According to him, injured Babu Ram was unconscious.

17. PW8 Nishu Gautam, Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in the matter. She has stated about the injury report. She has proved the documents prepared during investigation.

18. PW9 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mahajan has further examined PW4 Babu Ram. According to him, there was a fracture on the skull bone of the injured Babu Ram.

19. DW1 Smt. Susheela is the defence witness. According to her, there was a scuffle between PW4 Babu Ram and the revisionist and in that process PW4 Babu Ram sustained injuries caused by hitting the handle of E-rickshaw.

20. The statements of PW1 Nema Devi, PW3 Neelam, PW4 Babu Ram and PW5 Punam are 7 corroborative to each other. There is no reason to doubt their depositions. The prosecution, in fact, has been able to prove that on the date of incident, the revisionist did attack, PW1 Nema Devi, PW5 Punam as well as he hit on the head of PW4 Babu Ram. He also damaged the E-rickshaw of PW4 Babu Ram. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove charges under Section 323, 325, 427 IPC against the revisionist.

21. The question of sentence gains importance. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that all are family members. The revisionist is younger brother of PW4 Babu Ram. The FIR per se records that the revisionist was in an inebriated condition.

22. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is in jail for the last three months. He is not a previous convict. It is argued that the revisionist is quite poor man. He has two daughters and a son back at home. They are selling flowers for their livelihood. The revisionist is the only breadwinner in the family.

23. Learned State counsel would submit that the record does not reveal that the revisionist had any previous conviction. 8

24. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that instead of sentencing the revisionist at once, he may be released on probation of good conduct with the direction to pay compensation to PW4 Babu Ram.

25. The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 323, 325 and 427 of IPC, as recorded by the court below is upheld. Instead of sentencing the revisionist at once to any punishment, let the revisionist be released on entering into a bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, to appear and receive sentence, when called upon during a period of 12 months and in the meantime, maintain peace and good behaviour. The revisionist shall also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to PW4 Babu Ram.

26. The revision is allowed accordingly.

27. The impugned judgment and orders are modified to the extent, as indicated above.

28. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Record be transmitted to the Court below for compliance. Jitendra (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

09.01.2025

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 3 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 4 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, 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 probation of good conduct.

8. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned judgment and orders are in accordance with law. They do not warrant any interference.

9. This is a revision. The scope of revision is quite limited to the extent of examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the impugned judgment and order. 5

10. PW1 Nema Devi is the injured. She has supported the prosecution story. According to her, on

16.09.2020, the revisionist attacked her and her daughter. They were attacked by the bricks also. Their E-rickshaw was damaged and when her husband came, he was hit by a brick on his head, due to which, he sustained injuries. According to this witness, in fact, the revisionist had attacked her daughter with Patli due to which she suffered fracture.

11. PW2 Constable Trilok Chand has lodged the FIR in the Police Station. He has proved the other documents also.

12. PW3 Neelam is another injured, who daughter of PW1 Nema Devi and PW4 Babu Ram. She has supported the prosecution case.

13. PW4 Babu Ram has also supported the prosecution case and corroborated the statement of the PW1 Nema Devi.

14. PW5 Punam is another daughter of PW1 Nema Devi and PW4 Babu Ram. She has also supported the prosecution case. According to her, she also sustained injury on her hand. 6

15. PW6 Devi Dutt Joshi has examined the E-rickshaw, which was damaged by the revisionist. According to him, it was damaged.

16. PW7 Dr. Sehzad Khan has examined the injured Punam and Babu Ram and has proved the medical reports. According to him, injured Babu Ram was unconscious.

17. PW8 Nishu Gautam, Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in the matter. She has stated about the injury report. She has proved the documents prepared during investigation.

18. PW9 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mahajan has further examined PW4 Babu Ram. According to him, there was a fracture on the skull bone of the injured Babu Ram.

19. DW1 Smt. Susheela is the defence witness. According to her, there was a scuffle between PW4 Babu Ram and the revisionist and in that process PW4 Babu Ram sustained injuries caused by hitting the handle of E-rickshaw.

20. The statements of PW1 Nema Devi, PW3 Neelam, PW4 Babu Ram and PW5 Punam are 7 corroborative to each other. There is no reason to doubt their depositions. The prosecution, in fact, has been able to prove that on the date of incident, the revisionist did attack, PW1 Nema Devi, PW5 Punam as well as he hit on the head of PW4 Babu Ram. He also damaged the E-rickshaw of PW4 Babu Ram. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove charges under Section 323, 325, 427 IPC against the revisionist.

21. The question of sentence gains importance. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that all are family members. The revisionist is younger brother of PW4 Babu Ram. The FIR per se records that the revisionist was in an inebriated condition.

22. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is in jail for the last three months. He is not a previous convict. It is argued that the revisionist is quite poor man. He has two daughters and a son back at home. They are selling flowers for their livelihood. The revisionist is the only breadwinner in the family.

23. Learned State counsel would submit that the record does not reveal that the revisionist had any previous conviction. 8

24. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that instead of sentencing the revisionist at once, he may be released on probation of good conduct with the direction to pay compensation to PW4 Babu Ram.

25. The conviction of the revisionist under Sections 323, 325 and 427 of IPC, as recorded by the court below is upheld. Instead of sentencing the revisionist at once to any punishment, let the revisionist be released on entering into a bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, to appear and receive sentence, when called upon during a period of 12 months and in the meantime, maintain peace and good behaviour. The revisionist shall also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to PW4 Babu Ram.

26. The revision is allowed accordingly.

27. The impugned judgment and orders are modified to the extent, as indicated above.

28. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Record be transmitted to the Court below for compliance. Jitendra (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

09.01.2025