IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 893 of 2001 Old number. Criminal Revision No. 501 of 1995 Satpal and another. …..…..Revisionists. Versus State of U.P. ..….Opposite Party. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. R.P.Nautiyal and Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the revisionists. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. This revision under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal of Procedure is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.1994 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Roorkee thereby convicting the revisionists under sections 324 and 34 IPC sentencing them to undergo one year RI and further challenging the judgment and order dated 02.02.1995 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar thereby dismissing the appeal filed by accused / present revisionists. While exercising revisional power under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal of Procedure this court does not sit as Appellate Court over the judgment passed by courts below and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Jurisdiction of this court while exercising the revisional power is limited to the extent as to whether courts below committed such grave procedural irregularity which 2 vitiates the proceedings or any important peace of evidence has been escaped from the notice of the Courts which could throw light on the merit of the case or judgment is based upon no evidence or any illegality or jurisdictional error was done during the trial. First Information Report under sections 307 and 34 IPC was lodged against both the accused / revisionist. As per the First Information Report lodged by Atar Singh (complainant) on 02.01.1991 at about 8.30 p.m. complainant and Satpal were sitting at brick kiln all of sudden Vinod and Satpal Singh accused / revisionists came to brick kiln and started using abusive language. Vinod accused gave lalkar / call to Satpal to kill Atar Singh. On this Satpal fired at Atar Singh with intent to kill him. Bullet fired by Satpal hit Atar Singh on his stomach. After hearing the noise people came on the spot and caught Satpal accused along with fire arm while Vinod managed to escape. Satpal was brought to police station and fire arm was recovered from him and was deposited in police station. After investigation chargesheet under section 307 read with section 34 IPC was filed against both the accused while accused Satpal was also chargesheeted for the offence under section 25 of Arms Act. In the trial, PW 1 – Satpal, PW 2 – Atar Singh, PW 3 – Naresh, PW 4 – Rajendra Pal, PW 5 – Constable Ompal Singh, PW 6 – Intezar Ali, PW 7 – SI Ram Babu were examined. From the side of defence DW 1 – R.D. Sharma, DW 2 – Satpal were examined. In the statement under section 313 of Code of Criminal of Procedure, accused/ 3 revisionists took plea that since they could not complete work in brick kiln, hence, they were falsely implicated in the case. PW 4 - Dr. Rajendra Pal in the medical examination as well as in the statement made on oath stated that injuries on the body of Atar Singh were fire arm injuries. Injured Atar Singh supported the prosecution story. There was no reason for Atar Singh, who was injured to falsely implicate the accused. Learned Trial Court after examining the entire evidence on record found both the accused guilty of the offence under section 324 / 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year RI. However, Trial Court acquitted the accused Satpal for the offence under section 25 of Arms Act for want of permission from the Collector to prosecute Satpal. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, appeal was preferred being criminal appeal no. 20 of 1994 before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 02.02.1995. I have carefully examined the record and judgments passed by both the courts below. Both the courts below have discussed the statements of the prosecution witnesses in detail. I do not find any illegality, jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity. Judgment of both the courts below are based on evidence and material available on record. Mr. R. P. Nautiyal and Mr. M. S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the revisionists stated that there is no criminal history, hence, both the accused should have been 4 released on probation. I find force in the argument of learned counsels for the revisionists. Since both the accused were awarded sentence of one year RI, hence, I direct the Trial Court to release the accused revisionists on probation for the period of two years on furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. If during the probation period either of the revisionists / accused is found violating the terms and conditions of the probation or is found involved in any criminal activity probation shall cut short and he shall be taken into custody to serve the sentence awarded by Trial Court. With this observation, revision is allowed partly. (Alok Singh, J.) 09.12.2009 SKS