Sentence of imprisonment can be reduced by the court if it deems it just and appropriate: Hight Court of Uttarakhand.
The sentence of imprisonment of convicts can be reduced to the extent of the period undergone if the facts and circumstances of the case are such that they are not required in any other case except the present one and the court in its findings deems it to be the correct step. This was upheld by the Single judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice R.C. Khulbe in Kallu Ram and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Revision No.270 of 2020].  The brief facts of the case are, the revisionists stole two motor cycles. An FIR was lodged regarding the missing motorcycles. On 16.09.2008, the police recovered the motorcycles from the possession of the revisionists. Charges against the revisionists were framed under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the revisionists only under section 411 of the IPC for a period 0f 3 years with a fine of Rs. 10000/-. Aggrieved by this, the revisionists appealed before the sessions judge. The sessions court upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the revisionists have applied for a criminal revision before the Hon’ble High Court. The counsel for the revisionists submitted that the trial court rightly convicted the revisionists based on evidence. He submitted that there is no information regarding previous convictions and that both the revisionists have already served more than one year of sentence in jail. Considering that the revisionists have been acquitted under section 379 IPC, the counsel pleads the court to alter the sentence of the revisionists keeping in mind that they are the sole bread earners of the family. The learned counsel for the state confirms the submission by the revisionists which states that there is no information regarding other convictions of the revisionists. The learned judge after listening to both the sides concluded and upheld the conviction of the trial court. Regarding the prayer sought by the counsel for the revisionists, the court said that, “considering the fact that the incident is quite old and seems to have occurred in the year 2008; they are the sole bread earner of their families; there is no evidence regarding previous conviction; both the revisionists have already served more than one year in jail; as per the evidence two motorcycles were recovered from their possession; as regards to the sentence is concerned the revisionists have been acquitted U/s 379 IPC while there is maximum three years’ imprisonment prescribed U/s 411 IPC; and, they are not required in any other criminal case except the present one, it is considered to be just and appropriate to reduce the sentence from three years’ RI to fifteen months U/s 411 IPC.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.2720 Kallu Ram and Another .….…. Revisionists The State of Uttarakhand … Respondent Dated: 23.06.2021 Mr. S.R.S. Gill Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju Bahuguna learned counsel for the revisionists. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt learned Dy. A.G. and Mr. Siddharth Bisht learnd Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe J. Since the revision is time barred accordingly delay condonation application has been moved. Learned counsel for the State has no objection the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly delay condonation application is allowed and delay in preferring the present revision is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This criminal revision preferred by revisionist u s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1642 of 2013 “State of Uttarakhand Vs. Kallu Ram and another whereby the learned trial Court convicted the revisionists u s 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years’ R.I. with a fine of Rs.10 000 with default stipulation as well as judgment and order dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Udham Singh Nagar in criminal appeal no.228 of 2014 “Kallu Ram Vs. State of Uttarakhand” and criminal appeal no.229 of 2014 “Om Prakash Vs. State of Uttarakhand whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed judgment and order dated 15.07.20214 passed by the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 26.07.2008 with police station Pant Nagar U s 379 IPC regarding missing of the motorcycle of the informant. On 16.09.2008 two motorcycles were recovered from the possession of the revisionists. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted and accordingly cognizance was taken. After compliance of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the charges were framed under Sections 379 411 IPC. The revisionists denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried. To prove its case the prosecution produced PW1 Rajbahadur Sah PW2 Contable Kailash Kumar PW3 S.I. Manoj Raturi and PW4 Contable Mahendra Giri. After completion of prosecution evidence statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the evidence and stated that the prosecution produced false evidence against them. In defence no evidence was produced. After hearing both the parties the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionists as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Aggrieved by it the revisionists preferred separate criminal appeals before the learned Sessions Judge which were transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. After hearing both the parties the appellate Court came to this conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeals and affirmed the trial Court’s order. Aggrieved by it the present revision has been preferred. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire evidence available on the record. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court rightly convicted the revisionists based on evidence. He fairly submitted that there is no information regarding previous conviction both revisionists have already served more than one year in jail they are the only bread earners of their families as per the evidence two motorcycles were recovered from their possession both the revisionists have been acquitted U s 379 IPC he also submitted that this Court while upholding revisionists’ conviction may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the revisionists and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that there is no information regarding the previous conviction of the revisionists. I have also gone through the entire evidence on record produced by the prosecution and came to this conclusion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the revisionists based on sufficient evidence as produced by the prosecution. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings regarding conviction. The appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal legally. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and considering the fact that the incident is quite old and seems to have occurred in the year 2008 they are the sole bread earner of their families there is no evidence regarding previous conviction both the revisionists have already served more than one year in jail as per the evidence two motorcycles were recovered from their possession as regards to the sentence is concerned the revisionists have been acquitted U s 379 IPC while there is maximum three years’ imprisonment prescribed U s 411 IPC and they are not required in any other criminal case except the present one it is considered to be just and appropriate to reduce the sentence from three years’ RI to fifteen months U s 411 In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed in part. The revisionists are sentenced as follows: A. The revisionists are sentenced to undergo fifteen months’ RI imprisonment U s 411 IPC instead of three years’ RI as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the B. The fine awarded by the trial court under Section 411 appellate Court. IPC will remain intact. C. On completion of period of sentence as modified by this Court they shall be released from jail as per law and after due verification of records. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith records if any be sent back to the court concerned. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the jail authority also for compliance. Pending application if any stands disposed of. 23.06.2021 Sukhbant 