1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 822 of 2001 (Old No. 270 of 2000) 1. Kripal Singh S/O Sukhawa 2. Umesh Singh S/O Kripal Singh Both R/O Village Dharampur P.S, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …………Revisionists Versus State of U.P Now State of Uttarakhand …………..Opposite Party Shri Mohd Umar, Advocate, Holding Brief of Shri Pawan Kumar Advocate along with Ms. Vijay Laxmi Phartiyal (Amicus Curiae), for the revisionists Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A, present for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 28.01.2000, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham SinghNagar in criminal appeal No. 18 of 1999, whereby said court has affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused revisionists Kripal Singh and Umesh Singh, in respect of offences punishable under section 325 and 504 I.P.C. The trial court (Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur) had convicted the two vide its order dated 20th of September 1999, in criminal case no.103 of 1999. 2 (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court. (3) Prosecution story in brief is that PW1 Bhassu(complainant) had a dispute over a piece of land with accused/revisionists Kripal Singh and Umesh Singh. On 17.07.1993, at about 6.30 a.m, in the village Dharampur the accused/revisionists met the complainant and asked him to get settled the land dispute. In reply to this, the complainant told them that the dispute can be settled through the court only. This enraged the accused respondents who started assaulting with Laathi and Danda to the complainant, which they were armed with. The complainant on the very day i.e. 17.07.1993 at about 10.a.m, lodged the first information report (exhibit A). It was registered as crime no. 273 of 1993, against the accused/revisionists and one Nanhee relating to offences punishable under section 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the three accused, including the present revisionists, for their trial, in respect of offences punishable under section 323,325 and 504 I.P.C. After giving necessary copies to the accused, the trial court on 24.11.1994, framed charge of offences punishable under section 325 and 504 I.P.C against all the three accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Bhassu (complainant and injured), PW2 Kripal Singh another eyewitness and PW3 Dr. G.S.Joshi, who prepared 3 the medical report. The defence counsel appears to have admitted the genuineness of the document as such the remaining witnesses were not examined. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C, in reply to which they alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found accused Kripal Singh and Umesh Singh (both revisionists) guilty of charge of offences punishable under section 325 and 504 I.P.C. After hearing them on sentenced each of the convicts was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 325 I.P.C and simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 100/- under section 504 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 20th of September 1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in criminal case no. 103 of 1999, the two convicts namely Kripal Singh and Umesh Singh preferred criminal appeal no. 18 of 1999. After hearing the parties, Sessions Judge Udham Singh Nagar, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2000. Hence, this revision was filed by the two convicts before Allahabad High Court on 14.02.2000, from where, the same is received by this court under section 35 of U.P Re Organization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 4 (4) Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the trial court and appellate court have not appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law. It is pointed out that the non cognizable report, which was initially got lodged by the complainant was not proved on the record. It is also pleaded before this court that the courts below committed error of law in ignoring the contradictions/inconsistency in the statement of PW1 Bhassu and PW2 Kripal. (5) As far as the proving of the documents which were produced by the court below is concerned, it is apparent from the lower court record that the genuineness of the document has been admitted by the counsel for the defence as such the courts below have committed no error of law in reading the same in evidence. Apart from this PW1 Bhassu, while narrating the prosecution story states that accused revisionists Kripal Singh and Umesh Singh assaulted him with ‘DANDA’. He has stated that he lodged the report orally at the Police Station, Jaspur, and when said report was read out in court, he verified that this was the same report which he got lodged. In the circumstances it can not be said that the court below have read anything in evidence which was not proved. (6) As to the inconsistencies/contradictions between the statements of PW1 Bhassu (injured/complainant) and PW2 5 Kripal Singh, this court does not find any inconsistency/contradiction which shakes the testimony of injured witness PW1 Bhassu. The evidence of PW1 Bhassu is corroborated not only by the statement of PW2 Kripal Singh but also from the medical evidence on record which is sufficiently proved by PW3 Dr. G.S.Joshi, who proved that on the left leg of the injured, multiple fractures were found in fibula. The x-ray report in (exhibit A-2) on the record, corroborates said fact. (7) In the above circumstances, this court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court or by the appellate court in convicting the revisionists Kripal Singh and Umesh Singh under section 325 and 504 I.P.C, affirming the same. However, on the point of sentence this court is of the view that since the revisionists have already spent in jail about one month, and no useful purpose would be served by sending them again to jail after a long period of 17 years of the incident, as such the interest of justice would be met if the sentence passed against the revisionists is reduced to the period already undergo. (8) Accordingly, this revision is disposed of with the observation that the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below are affirmed on the point of conviction recorded against the revisionists Kripal Singh and Umesh 6 Singh, in respect of offences punishable under section 325 and 504 I.P.C. However, the sentence awarded by the court below is reduced to the period already undergone in jail. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.29.04.2010 NP