High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 02 UK CK 0077

Prakash Chandra Alias Om Prakash vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 22 Of 2006

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 391 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Heard Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Atul Kumar Sah, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.

2.

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions

Trial No.22 of 2004, State Vs. Prakash Chandra alias Om Prakash, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section

307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as, “the I.P.C.â€) and has been awarded sentence for two years rigorous imprisonment

with a fine of Rs.1,000/-; the appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the I.P.C. and was awarded sentence

for one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo

additional imprisonment of three months. It was further directed that both the sentences will run concurrently.

3.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not want to press the judgment and order of conviction, however, the learned

counsel for the appellant requests to reduce the sentence of imprisonment and enhance the fine.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand fairly concedes that if fine is enhanced, the State has no objection against the request

of the appellant.

5.

This incident had occurred in November, 2002. It is not in dispute between the parties that the appellant is now in his 60s. In these circumstances, if

the appellant is sentenced with imprisonment, it will cause great hardship to him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just

and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant.

6.

Therefore, the appellant is now awarded the jail sentence of what he has undergone and enhanced fine amount for the offence under Section 307

of the I.P.C. from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and for the offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C. from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In case, the appellant

fails to deposit the enhanced fine amount, it will result that the appellant will further serve the sentence for three months.

7.

The appeal is partly allowed.

8.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for intimation and compliance.