HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 956 of 2001 Lachman Singh S/o Sri Dungar Singh, R/o village-Karala Palri, P.S. Jhiroli, District Bageshwar. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand. ------- Respondents Sri B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Dated: July 4, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the judgment and order dated 09.09.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in criminal case no. 365/1998 State vs. Lachham Singh by which the revisionist-accused was convicted u/s 323, 325, 336, 506 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year’s R.I. u/s 323 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, two year’s R.I. u/s 325 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, three month’s R.I. u/s 336 I.P.C. and two year’s R.I. u/s 506 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The revisionist-accused was further convicted for 2 month’s S.I. in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and four month’s S.I. in default of payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/-. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The revisionist-accused is also aggrieved with the judgment and order dated passed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Crl. Appeal no. 7 of 2001 Lachham Singh vs. State, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist-accused was partly allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded for the offence punishable u/s 323,325 and 336 I.P.C. was affirmed and it was directed that in default of payment of fine the accused- revisionist shall undergo further 2 months’ S.I., while the 2 conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionist-accused u/s 506 I.P.C. was set-aside. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.04.1998 at 7:00 p.m. when the complainant Mohan Singh was returning to his house then on the way to his home at Janoti Paldi the accused- revisionist Lachham Singh suddenly started inflicting injuries to the complainant with stones and abused him, on account of which the complainant rushed to his home, but the accused also chased him and reached at his courtyard and threatened him to eliminate him and his family members. On which the complainant shut the door of the house, but the accused- revisionist continued to abusing and threatening him for about one hour. He also threatened that wherever the complainant will meet, he will finish him. After taking medical aid, the complainant got lodged the report on 13.04.1998 in this regard. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar on 23.06.1999 after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing of the material available on record framed charges against the accused-revisionist Lachham Singh for the offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 325, 336 and 506 I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced oral evidence of PW-1 Mohan Singh, PW-2 Smt. Beena Devi, PW-3 Vinod Kumar Manwar-Medical Officer, PW-4 M.R. Tamta, Station House Officer. In the documentary evidence the prosecution has produced FIR Ext. Ka-1, Medical Report Ext. Ka-2, Supplementary Medical Report Ext. Ka-3, Charge Sheet Ext. Ka-4, Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-5, Site Plan Ext. Ka-6. 3 5. After the evidence of the prosecution was concluded, the oral and documentary evidence was put before the accused- revisionist in question form u/s 313 Cr.P.C., who in reply denied the allegations made against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. No oral or documentary evidence was produced in defence. 6. After appreciating all the evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court has convicted the accused-revisionist for the offence punishable u/s 323, 325, 336, 506 I.P.C. and sentenced him as above. Being aggrieved with order of conviction and sentence dated 09.09.1999 passed by the Trial Court, the accused-revisionist preferred Crl. Appeal before the Appellate Court, who vide his judgment and order dated 17th November 2001 partly allowed the appeal as mentioned above. Aggrieved with these judgment and orders, the accused-revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 7. During the course of argument Sri B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State both have stated that the accused- revisionist has serve out the sentence as awarded to him by the Appellate Court and now he has been released from the Jail after completing the sentence. In this regard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has filed a letter sent by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Almora dated 17.04.2008 to the Police Superintendent, Bageshwar indicating therein that the accused- revisionist Lachham Singh S/0 Dungar Singh, resident of village Karala-Paldi, Police Station Jhiroli who was confined in connection with Criminal Appeal no. 7 of 2001 u/s 323, 325 and 336 I.P.C. on 17.11.2001, has been released on 27.01.2003 after completing the sentence awarded to him. It is further submitted that as the accused-revisionist has been set at liberty from jail after serving out the sentence awarded to him, therefore the 4 revision is rendered infructuous, hence the revision may be dismissed as such. 8. Otherwise also, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 17.11.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 10. Let the trial Court’s record be sent back to the Court concerned for its’ consignment. (Dharam Veer, J.) 04.07.2008 NCM: