GANESH DUTT JOSHI Vs. SATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-118
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 14,2013

Ganesh Dutt Joshi Appellant
VERSUS
Sate Of Uttarakhand And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Consequent upon lodging of a first information report and upon submission of charge-sheet against the accused persons, accused Anand Singh, Navneet Joshi and Bhagwan Ram were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Co-accused Nain Singh was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
(2.) After conclusion of the trial, accused Nain Singh was convicted under Section 366 IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which, he was required to undergo six months' further rigorous imprisonment. Accused Nain Singh was also convicted for the offence under Section 368 IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which, he was required to undergo six months' further rigorous imprisonment. Accused persons, namely, Anand Singh, Bhagwan Ram and Navneet were convicted under Section 366 IPC. Each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which, they were required to undergo six months' further rigorous imprisonment. Accused persons, namely, Anand Singh, Bhagwan Ram and Navneet were also convicted under Section 368 IPC. Each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which, they were required to undergo six months' further rigorous imprisonment. Convicts-revisionists Anand Singh, Bhagwan Ram and Navneet were also convicted under Section 376 IPC. Each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of Rs. 25000/-, in default of which, they were required to undergo two years' further rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The period undergone by them in jail was directed to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. It was further directed that if the fine is realized, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2008, informant Ganesh Dutt Joshi, father of victim, filed the present Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2008 will indicate that, not only the prosecution evidence was correctly appreciated by the Trial Court, adequate and proper sentence was also awarded to the convicts-respondents no. 2 to 5, which sentence cannot be said to be inadequate. Learned Trial Court has not committed breach of any penal provision of the Indian Penal Code. An offender, while being convicted under Section 366 IPC is punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. An offender found guilty of offence punishable under Section 368 IPC, is punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement. Convict of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC is punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may be for life and shall also be liable to pay fine. The Court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose the sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.