VINOD BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-10-76
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 03,2013

Vinod Bhatt Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Present revision is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate Rishikesh in Criminal Case No. 142 of 2009, whereby revisionist was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 452 I.P.C., to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 I.P.C. and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 504 I.P.C. with the stipulation in the event of default in making payment of fine, accused shall undergo additional simple imprisonment of 15 days as well as judgment and order dated 06.09.2013, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh whereby Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2011 filed by the accused revisionist herein was dismissed.
(2.) As per the prosecution story, on 02.01.2006 accused Vinod Bhatt entered into the house of his real brother Suresh Chandra Bhatt and his wife Madhu Bhatt and, thereafter, abused them and assaulted both of them.
(3.) Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that accused revisionist has no criminal antecedents to his credit and he is first time offender. He contends that there was fight between two brothers, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist accused in jail. Therefore, revisionist accused should be enlarged on probation for a period of two years under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and revisionist accused shall pay compensation to the injured Suresh Chandra Bhatt and his wife Madhu Bhatt Rs.25,000/- each (total Rs.50,000/-) under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act read with 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, learned Brief Holder submits that suggestion made by Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the revisionist seems to be just and proper.;


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