IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 496 of 2001 (Old No. 1561 of 1993) 1. Anang Pal S/o Chet Ram R/o I.R.I. Colony, Roorkee, P.S. Gang Nahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar, P.O. Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Vinod S/o Phool Chand Harijan R/o Mohalla Chaumandi, P.S. Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar, P.O. Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Revisionists Versus State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) ...…………. Respondent Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the revisionists. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Asstt. Govt. Advocate for respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.09.1993, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1993, whereby the revisionists No. 1 Anang Pal has been convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., and revisionist No. 2 Vinod has been convicted under Section 324 / 34 of I.P.C. Each one of the two has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 2 The trial court (II Asstt. Sessions Judge, Roorkee), in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1991, convicted the aforesaid two under Section 307 / 34 of I.P.C., and sentenced to each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also directed each one of them to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/-. Against said judgment dated 28.06.1993, passed by the lower appellate court, in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1991, the convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1993, in which their conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C. was set aside, and they were convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., as mentioned above. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 07.08.1990, at about 09:15 P.M., P.W. 1 Mohan Singh (complainant) and his son P.W. 2 Ghanshyam (injured) were walking in I.R.I. Colony, Roorkee, after taking their meals. Suddenly, the accused / revisionists Anang Pal and Vinod reached there, and Anang Pal stabbed with knife in the stomach of Ghanshyam. After injuring Ghanshyam the two accused (present revisionists) ran away. On next day i.e. 08.08.1990, P.W. 1 Mohan Singh lodged the first information report (Ext. A –1) with police station Gangnahar, Roorkee, against the aforesaid two accused in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. The injured was medically examined by P.W. 3 Dr. S.P. 3 Ahuja. He was also given treatment by P.W. 5 Dr. Rajendra Pal. P.W. 6 Hari Prasad Kardam investigated the crime, interrogated the witnesses, prepared site plan, and submitted charge sheet (Ext. A –7) against the two accused for their trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. The Magistrate on receipt of the charge sheet, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Sessions court after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. against accused Anang Pal and one punishable under Section 307 / 34 of I.P.C. against accused Vinod. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Mohan Singh (complainant); P.W. 2 Ghanshyam (injured); P.W. 3 Dr. S.P. Ahuja; P.W. 4 Chetan Prakash; P.W. 5 Dr. Rajendra Pal; P.W. 6 Hari Prasad Kardam (Investigating Officer), and P.W. 7 Sub Inspector Dharam Pal Singh Chauhan. The evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, no evidence in defence appears to have been adduced. The trial court (II Asstt. Sessions Judge, Roorkee) after hearing the parties, vide his order dated 28.06.1993, convicted accused Anang Pal under Section 307 of I.P.C., and accused Vinod under Section 307 / 34 of I.P.C. After hearing them on sentence, each one of the convicts was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/-. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 28.06.1993, passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1991, the convicts 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1993 before Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Said court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.1993, modified the conviction and sentence of the accused (present revisionists) and they were convicted under Section 324 / 34 of I.P.C. The lower appellate court sentenced accused Anang Pal under Section 324 of I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and accused Vinod under Section 324 / 34 of I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Hence, this revision was filed by the two convicts, before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1993, from where it is received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 4) Learned counsel for the revisionists argued that there is no evidence on record relating to prior meeting of mind between revisionist No. 1 Anang Pal and revisionist No. 2 Vinod. It is further pointed out that from the evidence it is not clear if the revisionist No. 2 Vinod had any knowledge that revisionist No. 1 Anang Pal was having knife in his possession. It is also pleaded on behalf of revisionist No. 2 that none of the witnesses have stated that revisionist No. 2 Vinod ever exhorted revisionist No. 1 to cause injury on the person of Ghanshyam (injured). On the basis of above points it is contended that the conviction of revisionist No. 2 Vinod is erroneous in law in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 / 34 of I.P.C. Having considered 5 submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for revisionist No. 2 that there is nothing on record to show that there was any prior meeting of mind between accused Anang Pal and accused Vinod, and it is also correct that Vinod had not exhorted Anang Pal to stab Ghanshyam. In the circumstances merely for his presence with accused Anang Pal, Vinod could not have been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the revision of revisionist No. 2 Vinod deserves to be allowed. 5) However, as far as revision of revisionist No. 1 Anang Pal is concerned, as against him there is direct evidence of P.W. 2 Ghanshyam, the injured witness, who has stated that it was Anang Pal who stabbed knife in his stomach. P.W. 1 Mohan Singh (complainant), father of the injured, has also narrated the prosecution story as stated by P.W. 2 Ghanshyam. The only one injury on the person of Ghanshyam is corroborated by the statement of P.W. 3 Dr. S.P. Ahuja, who medically examined the injured, and prepared the injury report (Ext. A –2). There is sufficient evidence on record that there was electric light at the place of incident when Ghanshaym was stabbed by Anang Pal. Therefore, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the lower appellate court in convicting him (Anang Pal) under Section 324 of 6 I.P.C. However, on the point of sentence from the record it is clear that accused revisionist Anang Pal remained in jail during the period of appeal and was directed to be released after he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in this revision in October 1993. As such, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending Anang Pal again in jail at this stage, after lapse of twenty years of the incident, and the sentence can be modified to the period already undergone by him during the period of trial and appeal. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, revision of revisionist No. 2 Vinod is allowed. He is acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 324 / 34 of I.P.C. Conviction and sentence recorded by the lower appellate court on that count stands set aside. His acquittal from the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 / 34 of I.P.C. as recorded by the first appellate court is not disturbed. He is on bail. He need not to surrender. The revision of revisionist No. 1 Anang Pal is allowed partly. His conviction under Section 324 of I.P.C. recorded by first appellate court is affirmed. However, his sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 27, 2010. H. Negi